Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Brooke on April 02, 2008, 12:58:28 AM
-
If you were in charge of picking the airplanes that your country would have during a WWII-type war -- what 5 aircraft would you pick? Assume that the aircraft perform just as they do in Aces High, that you can pick any non-perk plane from Aces High, and that cost is not a factor. (These are what you'd pick for a real war, not just what you like flying best in the Main Arena.)
I'd go for the following:
P-47N. For fighter, fighter-bomber, and high-altitude escort. I'd pick this because of its range, speed, performance at altitude, lethality, ruggedness, and ability to carry a lot of ordnance. The P-51D is also a contender here for me, but the P-47N is more rugged and has more punch.
F4U-1D. For my carrier aircraft, both as fighter and divebomber; also as general fighter and fighter-bomber. It's faster than the F6F, outturns the F6F by a little, and carries more than the F6F in Aces High.
B-24J. For my heavy bomber. The Lancaster is a great plane, but its defense armament isn't nearly as good as the B-24 and B-17. I'd pick the B-24 over the B-17 because the B-24 is a little faster and carries a bit more, yet has the same good defensive armament.
B-25H. With cannon, for ground attack and attack against ground vehicles. The cannon is a great weapon against ground vehicles and buildings. I'd pick it over the Il-2 as it carries more bombs and especially because of the cannon.
Spitfire Mk XVI. For quick-climbing field defense and intercept. This would be a base-defense fighter and a fighter to use when you need to get up in a hurry to intercept things.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,230277.0.html :aok
-
Are you including production costs Brooke? Made a big difference back then too :)
You could produce a lot more 51s for less then you could P38s for example. B25s easier to produce then B26s etc.
If cost isnt an object, then I'd go with:
P38L-range, firepower, ground attack capability, safety of two engines for long overwater flights.
P51D-Can do the Spitfire bit in defense, has the range to escort the bombers
F6F-Rugged, easier to fly off the carriers, can carry the bombs and rockets too
Mosquito-does it all and fast.
B17-Better survivabilty and if I have to fly a bomber it needs to look good :)
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,230277.0.html :aok
Larry, that's not the same thing. I tried asking the question there, but people are just answering what they like to fly in the main arena. This is a much different question.
-
Are you including production costs Brooke? Made a big difference back then too :)
You could produce a lot more 51s for less then you could P38s for example. B25s easier to produce then B26s etc.
If cost isnt an object, then I'd go with:
P38L-range, firepower, ground attack capability, safety of two engines for long overwater flights.
P51D-Can do the Spitfire bit in defense, has the range to escort the bombers
F6F-Rugged, easier to fly off the carriers, can carry the bombs and rockets too
Mosquito-does it all and fast.
B17-Better survivabilty and if I have to fly a bomber it needs to look good :)
I'm not including production cost. The reason is that it is hard to figure out the importance of that vs. aircraft capability. I think that aircraft capability was much more important than cost, as Germany and Japan ran out of trained pilots before they ran out of aircraft; and Japan and Russia built a lot of lower-cost aircraft that they lost in large numbers. If cost were a factor, though, I'd put in the P-51D instead of the P-47N and the F6F instead of the F4U, and I'd skip the B-25 altogether.
I like your list, too -- especially the P-38L. :)
-
Not a luftwhine.. But this scenario has to be biased on the side whose research and production wasn't attrited.
-
Bf 109K - Defense interceptor
Ta 152H - High altitude escort fighter
B24 - Strategic bomber
Mosquito FB.VI - Ground support/fighter-bomber
F4U-1D - Carrier-borne fighter-bomber
-
Why the 24 instead of the 29?
-
We don't have a 29 in AH. Read the rules. :)
-
Isn't it better to just say "any plane that'd get into AH"? Cause theres plenty of planes not in yet that'd make it and be high on the list for this scenario.
-
You have to determine what the situation is going to be.
What Germany required of planes is vastly different that what USA needed.
USA needed high alt escorts and intercepters to take control of Germany's skys.
Germany needed fast cannon armed planes to take out USA's Bombers.
Breeds totally different kinds of cats from the same basic parts.
To the point that a plane which is reveiled & hated in the USA, becomes one of Russia's prime performers.
Different jobs, so different tools required. What job needs to be done ends up decideing the tool's shape.
Form follows function.
-
My five:
CR.42
G.50
C.200
SM79
BR20
Oh, wait......................... .... :noid
-
Maybe I'd take the P-47N instead of the Ta 152H ...
What's the critical altitude for the P-47N? (The HTC charts only go to 30k.)
-
P38L-range, firepower, ground attack capability, safety of two engines for long overwater flights/escort.
Spit 16- Base defense, but if I wanted to look good, Spit 9:cool:
F6F-Rugged, easier to fly off the carriers, can carry the bombs and rockets too
Mosquito-does it all and fast.
B17-Better survivabilty and if I have to fly a bomber it needs to look good :)
-
If you were in charge of picking the airplanes that your country would have during a WWII-type war -- what 5 aircraft would you pick?
What do you mean by WWII-type war? Do my aircraft have to able to compete at nosebleed altitudes like the ETO, off carriers like the PTO, and in the weeds killing tanks like the Eastern Front?
-
Hm. 5 Planes.
P-47N For Long Range High Alt Escort.
109K as my Interceptor. You can't replace climb rate when it comes to short notice.
F4U-1D for CV Based Strike/Fighter.
Ki-67 Medium Bomber.
B-24 Heavy/Strategic bomber.
-Sik
-
If you were in charge of picking the airplanes that your country would have during a WWII-type war -- what 5 aircraft would you pick? Assume that the aircraft perform just as they do in Aces High, that you can pick any non-perk plane from Aces High, and that cost is not a factor. (These are what you'd pick for a real war, not just what you like flying best in the Main Arena.)
I'd go for the following:
P-47N. For fighter, fighter-bomber, and high-altitude escort. I'd pick this because of its range, speed, performance at altitude, lethality, ruggedness, and ability to carry a lot of ordnance. The P-51D is also a contender here for me, but the P-47N is more rugged and has more punch.
F4U-1D. For my carrier aircraft, both as fighter and divebomber; also as general fighter and fighter-bomber. It's faster than the F6F, outturns the F6F by a little, and carries more than the F6F in Aces High.
B-24J. For my heavy bomber. The Lancaster is a great plane, but its defense armament isn't nearly as good as the B-24 and B-17. I'd pick the B-24 over the B-17 because the B-24 is a little faster and carries a bit more, yet has the same good defensive armament.
B-25H. With cannon, for ground attack and attack against ground vehicles. The cannon is a great weapon against ground vehicles and buildings. I'd pick it over the Il-2 as it carries more bombs and especially because of the cannon.
Spitfire Mk XVI. For quick-climbing field defense and intercept. This would be a base-defense fighter and a fighter to use when you need to get up in a hurry to intercept things.
in the real world, WW2 era, all the great aces scored the majority of their kills by NOT turnfighting, but rather by using(the hated in the arenas) hit and run.... so..for air superiority, i'd have to pick the P51D(and i don't/can't fly this yet in the arenas)as she's fast enough to do this. this machine would be a good bomber killer(part of her original design i think) and would be a good escort. for base defense, i like the spitfires...any one of the later ones..fast acceleration, good turning, good climb. for ground attack, the ME110 or the P47.....both forces to be reckoned with. for bombing, a boatload of B17's. well defended, and accurate...and they bring thier crews home. P38's to work with the P51's escorting the bombers........very deadly combination.
now..how about this question?(holy thread hijack batman!!!!)
same conditions, but modern day?
<<S>>
-
Let's see
Intercepter BF 109 K
Escort P 51 B
Attack A 20
Light Bomber B 25 H
Heavy B 24
-
Fighter: Ki 84
Med bomber: Ki 67
Heavy Bomber: B-17
Fighter-bomber: P-47N
Ground Attack: IL-2
Carrier Fighter: F4U-1C
Carrier Bomber: B5N2
-
Carrier Bomber: B5N2
I would rather join the army than fly a B5N2 into combat.
My choices would be...(in order from what I'd like to fly most to least...)
Ta.152H1
Fw.190D9
Bf.109G10/K4
Bf.109G14
Fw.190A8 (non-sturm)
Bf.109G6
Simply for the ability to get in and out of the fight quickly.
-
F6F HellCat- Main fighter since it can do land and sea operations. Manuverable, reliable, good for attack/support role also.
TBM Avenger- Main carrier attack/bomber plane, as well as close air support craft for ground ops
B25 Mitchell-Well rounded plane. Can be used for bombing(glazed nose version, or for attack missions(mg nose)
Lancaster- Heavy Bomber of the group. Since it can carry huge load, makes my list
P51D- Main interceptor and Escort Plane For Landcasters(due to their so-so defensive weapons).
-
My pick would be:
109-G2 - Fast and turney, vastly underrated, for field defense
Mossie - Quickest way to deliver jabo ord
B-24 - For those big bombs of love
190-A5 - Anti-bomber & escort
Ki-84 - Allround excellent performer
-
Maybe I'd take the P-47N instead of the Ta 152H ...
What's the critical altitude for the P-47N? (The HTC charts only go to 30k.)
I think the P-47N achieved top speed at 30-32k.
-
You have to determine what the situation is going to be.
What Germany required of planes is vastly different that what USA needed.
[etc.]
and
What do you mean by WWII-type war? Do my aircraft have to able to compete at nosebleed altitudes like the ETO, off carriers like the PTO, and in the weeds killing tanks like the Eastern Front?
True, but I'm more wondering what people would pick in the following situation, not in a specific historical situation. You and another country are going to go at it in a WWII-style war for world domination. You each can pick whatever aircraft you want. The war may end up with you on the defensive (if you are losing) or you on the offensive and covering more territory (if you are winning). It might be Russian/German style of fighting if you end up taking over part of central Asia and if your tactics end up being like what the Russians used; or it might be US/IJN/IJAAF style of fighting if you end up taking over portions of the Pacific; or anything in between. You only get to pick aircraft at the start, but you don't know how it will end up -- that is to be determined depending on how the war goes. What would you pick as aircraft? Basically, head to head, all other things being equal for each side other than choices of aircraft, what would you pick?
-
I think the P-47N achieved top speed at 30-32k.
I think I'll stick with the Ta 152H then.
-
F6F-5 Great all around fighter/attacker Land or Sea based
P51D fighter/escort range, speed, high alt perf
Ju88 med bomber/torpedo capability
B17 Duh
C47 You have to get troops in there to win the war...
-
Probably a P-38J/L because I can accelerate, dive, run and zoom away when the bullets start flying :D
It can also do pretty much everything else.
I wouldn't mind flying a P-51B either because it's likely to keep me alive. by running! The only thing I don't like about this plane is acceleration.
Or perhaps the F4U for its great versatility and carrier capability, though I don't like its climb rate.
-
You have an issue here in that you havent determined the nature of the fight. For example the luftwaffe would have been totally non mission capable in the PAC and so would the Russians. Historically neither the Germans or Russians were even BOB capable or really capable of efficient bomber defense do to range limitations.
If you view the equation from the viewpoint of true force projection you basically have the 8th airforce. You can go farther, fly higher and deliver more payload then anyone else. So the B-24 and P-51 are your backbone for true force projection. Sticking within the confines of the AH plane set the A-20 is the only logical ground attack choice...why....because it flew in all fronts till the end of the war and did very well. The russians operated more A-20's the anyone and used it extensively with great effect. It was much more survivable in a fluid enviornment then the B-25 and more suited to ground interdiction then the B-26.
The Tempest is your best low alt multipurpose "fighter/bomber" but questions of range are unknown. Given no clear tasking you'd need greater range. The P-47N is inferior at lower alts so while it has the range its not suited for sustained low level operations. With the F7F unavailable the P-38 has the best combination of range, payload and survivability in this role.
While the allies faced no inbound bomberstream you need an interceptor. While the pony has the tools it doesn have an ideal gun package...so the choice is either the P-47N or the spitXIV. The spitty climbs better, turns better and hits harder then the jug and is faster at mil power at all alts. So while it has shorter range it still gets the nod as a better point defense plane for bomber interception.
-
If it's a real war, I'd choose the F-15 Eagle with the most experienced ground crew possible. That way, I would have the capability of speed and maneuverability for Air to Air, and have the ordinance options for good Air to Ground.
-
You have an issue here in that you havent determined the nature of the fight.
I figured we were trying to use our five planes to maximize our coverage across the board for all possible missions. Each nation had to play the hand they were dealt, and therefore came up with different planes for different missions. Not knowing what to expect, I wanted to get every mission taken care of, and I think that I did a fair job of it given the 5 plane limit.
Interestingly enough, my favorite planes didn't make the cut. There just isn't room for a Yak unless you are totally devoted to ground support (and covering that ground support). Instead of Il-2s, I'm stuck with Jugs, which wouldn't need the Yaks nearly as much. And I don't have a true CV strike capability, though with 2k of bombs the Hog does a fair job with it. And really, how can you bet against the 109 series as an interceptor? Max Climb, good high alt performance, gun package from hell. The main limitation of range is minimized by the nature of the mission.
It's a fun exercize. How about it we limited it to aircraft in game and available in 1941? That would change things quite a bit I suppose.
-Sik
-
The problem is putting things in a historical context thats appropriate. A carrier force isnt really interchangeable with a land based one. If we look at the real role of an airforce in a war its the forward projection of force above and beyond all else. Only the US really evolved the ability to execute long range percision bombing. Had a war between the US and Russia evolved in 1946 the US would have handily destroyed soviet infrastructure. Tactically you can make an arguement for every airforce and even view the US planes as somewhat inferior...until you realize we were never pressed since our airforce was clearly dominant in its intended role...
Had we needed it the F7F could have been in service for D-day, the P-51D could have had 4 x 20mm or the F6F could have been in ETO service in a 2 x 20mm 4 x .50 option. The best axis plane of the war (fighter) was the G.55 {might just be the best 1943 design of the war period}. Put a late war 109K-4 engine in a G.55 and you'd have a monster able to beat anything in the game I think.
Back on task, you need to execute a strategic bombing campaign, provide tactical fighter bomber offense and local fighter defense, true tactical bombing and ground target/troop/supply interdiction & defend a strategic bomber campaign both theatre wide and at point of attack.
As configured the P-51's wouldnt fair all that well vs the buffs they were escorting (especially vs P-51 escorts). The spitXIV is actually a better high alt bomber interceptor then the 109K. Hog certainly could replace the P-38 but I think the 38 would be more versital in such a limited plane set.
-
I disagree with what appears to be the assertion that strategic bombing is the primary method of projecting force. I know that you didn't say that directly, but it seems implied. I don't want to branch off into an ancilary argument on that point though.
I guess my point would be that Historic context is irrelevant. We don't know what our force needs are going to be, so we try to project to cover any eventuality. Most everyone recognized Strat bombing by selecting a heavy buff and an escort for it. Because that is how the US developed our force structure, most went with US hardware for that mission.
As for the K4 and Spit XIV, I haven't played since the new spits came out (or the K4 for that matter, but I did have a bit of G-14 stick time), but by the numbers they look like a wash: http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php
But taking out the historic context was part of the reason for moving the date forward to 1941: Before everyone knew how it was going to shake out. Though upon reflection, I probably should have made it 1939 instead.
-Sik
-
You'll have to take everything Humble says with a rather large pinch of salt. He's got his USAF beer goggles on, as always.
-
Not at all...
Facts are facts....nothing more or less.
1st, why did germany lose WW2...the answer lies in 1940 not later. It had the best tactical air land & sea forces in the world bar none. however they were all tactical in nature except one. It's only true strategic force was its submarine force, which almost was enough to sneak out a win. It's shortcomings were exposed early in 2 specific incidents...
It's total failure during the BOB when it did not have sufficient range in its tactical airforce or navy to handle a 26 mile stretch of water. This was compounded by the russians ability to break down and transport entire factories beyond the range of german airpower. At this point in 1941 the war was over, germany had no strategic capability to attack and was limited by its tactical reach.
Prior to WW2 the biggest strategic advances were Road (Roman), Sail (Phoenicians/Greeks), Rail (not really sure on this one). From a military perspective these all delt with the transport of men and material. As important as the Roman military structure was, the real evolution was the integration of a military engineering component...logistics win wars...period.
As we move forward the next component is really firepower. While many would view gun powder as the key evolution the real epiphany occured in 1138 at the battle of standard. 275+ years later the seed planted in 1138 led to one of the most far reaching changes in warfare with the battle of Agincourt in 1415. This really laid the groundwork for combined arms warfare, Artillery and a host of tactical inovations 200 yrs before gun powder appeared.
WW1 was really the last true tactical war. While Germany studied and prepared for a 2nd tactical war and France prepared for a war of defense and attrition the US and Japan squared off over manifest destiny. Both viewed war over a distance of thousands of miles and with a focus on strategic assets and long range projection of power and interdiction of enemy forces. Accordingly both evolved strong navies with significant capital ships, intrinsic airpower & exceptional logistic capability combined with strong submarine and escort capability (England suprisingly had a large but tactically oriented navy which cost it dearly early in the war).
US geographic isolation led to a focus on the strategic elements of warfare. No other nation had the raw capability to project men and material in great quanity over vast distances. Contrast that with Germanys inability to force the British from Malta or supply the Afrika korps...
Had Japan not invaded Pearl harbor the US could have invaded Sicily very easily in 1942 by itself and France/Italy by mid 1943. No other nation on earht had that type of capability to project forces. As a general rule US planes flew further, faster and delivered more ords then any other equivelent plane.
-
Here he goes again...
-
True, but I'm more wondering what people would pick in the following situation, not in a specific historical situation. You and another country are going to go at it in a WWII-style war for world domination. You each can pick whatever aircraft you want. The war may end up with you on the defensive (if you are losing) or you on the offensive and covering more territory (if you are winning). It might be Russian/German style of fighting if you end up taking over part of central Asia and if your tactics end up being like what the Russians used; or it might be US/IJN/IJAAF style of fighting if you end up taking over portions of the Pacific; or anything in between. You only get to pick aircraft at the start, but you don't know how it will end up -- that is to be determined depending on how the war goes. What would you pick as aircraft? Basically, head to head, all other things being equal for each side other than choices of aircraft, what would you pick?
Ok, without know what kind of theatre from WWII our war will be like, my list is:
B-24
La-7 (just to piss you guys off, I'm the first person to list it) :P
P-47N (doubles as high altitude escort fighter and mud-mover)
Ju-88 :O (Because it carries 2 torpedos, which might come in handy)
F4U-1D (the best unperked carrier plane)
I will win the war. :rock
-
I will win the war. :rock
That's what you think...Until one of my F-15's Air to Air missiles obliterates you! :lol
-
Seems to me you have to look at it in terms of either defense or offense which is why i left the 109s and Spits off my list. Range is a huge issue, and loiter time. I'd rather intercept with something that has more range then needed for that job, then have to use a short range bird for long range escort should my AF need it.
The F6F on my list can fill the ground attack job from land bases if needed and because it's a radial bird, it should be able to survive better in that job then the 51s. And if I need a carrier bird it does the job well and is an easier bird to handle then the Corsairs which is why I chose the F6F although the Corsair would be interchangable
Mossie fills in nice to anti-shipping/recce/long range fighter/intruder/night fighter/bomber. If I'm limited to 5 planes I want the most bang for my buck.
38 is the same thing. Recce/fighter/fighter bomber/interceptor and with range
51 covers that as well
17 gives me a bird to go long with escorts if I need a strategic bombing campaign.
-
Here he goes again...
The B-17 entered US service in 1937 and was completely deployed by the end of 1938. As a point of arguement lets give the luftwaffe those B-17s for the BOB. The 110's actually had better performance at altitude then the british hurricanes and spitfires did and a range of roughly 1500 miles. So the germans would have been operating a strategic airforce from bases beyond the range of british fighters and screened by 109 bases. The 109's would have been completely free of any escort duties and the 110's would have been operating at higher alts where they had equal or better performance to the british planes who were attempting to intercept B-17s at 26K+ with .303 armed fighters. As british losses mounted and manufacturing, infrastructure, supply and morale were attrited german tactical bombers could attack targets of opportunity and 110's would be able (with there much greater range) to sweep down on british fighters attempting to land and rearm after staging and then attacking the buffs. England would have lost both the BOB and the war in 90 days had the germans had just a few hundred B-17's.
The germans certainly had the capability to build an equivelent plane, they just didnt see the need. If they had WW2 would have ended before the US ever couldhave gotten involved...
-
Less than a hundred B-17 had been made by the time of the BoB, and those early B-17 B and C were far from as effective as the later F and G models. The RAF were the first to use the B-17 in combat and they were so unimpressed with the performance that the B-17 was quickly relegated to other duties, mostly coastal defense. They were simply unable to hit their targets and the machine guns froze up, leaving them defenseless. RAF's experience with the Fortress I showed both the RAF and USAAF that the B-17C was not ready for combat, and that improved defenses, larger bomb loads and more accurate bombing methods were required.
At $238,329 per aircraft the production cost of the B-17 also made it completely unacceptable for a BoB-era Luftwaffe. A Ju 88A-5 cost only RM 196,825 ... $46,863 in 1940's currency conversion. The Luftwaffe could get five Ju 88's for the price of one B-17, and the Ju 88 could carry the same bomb load as early B-17's.
Further more the whole of the British Isles were already within the range of Luftwaffe bombers so the B-17's greater range is irrelevant. The Luftwaffe even bombed a number of cities and towns in Ireland. Very few Luftwaffe bombing raids were turned back by the RAF the vast majority of raids reached their targets. The 110 in operation during the BoB did not have better performance than the Spitfire at high altitudes. The 110C in AH is an up-engined version that is not representative of the BoB 110's.
The Luftwaffe was already bombing British infrastructure, but just like the Germans did later in the war the British had decentralized their war industry. The Germans were unable to locate and identify the British war producing "cottage-industry", and the Luftwaffe's strategic efforts were as ineffective in stopping the British war production as the USAAF's later effort against German war production.
As always your comments are nothing but fantasy and wishful thinking. The only thing that could have won the Germans the BoB was to concentrate on the tactical destruction of the RAF and their airfields. The Luftwaffe's switch to strategic bombing and terror bombing lost them the battle ... and probably the war.
-
I think the P-47N achieved top speed at 30-32k.
34K for critical altitude in the P-47N.
If I going into combat in one of these planes, the P-47N would be my choice, bar none. Range exceeded the P-51D, flew faster at altitude, rugged, handled well, more power than it needed, and had fairly docile characteristics on the landing roll (almost impossible to ground loop). Furthermore, creature comforts in the cockpit were figured in, big roomy cockpit with rudder pedals that could be flipped down for leg rests, and, it had an autopilot for those long, 12 hour missions. It had enough firepower for any situation, and had a solid setup for ground attack--decent payload, lots of structure to soak up ack, and a radial engine that could cough and sputter its way back missing cylinders. When you look at its systems, you truly start to see an aircraft that was beginning to hit the ultimate potential of what a piston-engined fighter could be. Automated oil cooler and intercooler controls, automated water injection controls, K-14 gunsite, etc.
Other 4 aircraft:
F4U-4
P-47D series
F6F-5
FW-190
-
If I had to fly into combat I'd take what gives me the best chances to survive. Combat record proves:
P47 as escort+jabo
F6F - carrier
Mosquito - bomber, night fighter, whathaveyou.
I would stay away from the F4U - surviving the war includes not killing myself as well.
Why would anyone use B17/24s when Mosquitos do the same job better, safer and cheaper?
-
That's what you think...Until one of my F-15's Air to Air missiles obliterates you! :lol
unless someone comes for you in an F22. then you'll be :O as his missles take ya apart :rofl
-
I would use the F4U-1D: good bombs and rocks, can be used as a good fighter.
P-51D: range, and good at high alt
B-24: Not as big as the Lanc, but more guns. Not as good as 17, but more bombs.
P-38: Good as an attack plane, ok as fighter
TMB- Good armor, and guns for a torp plane, also uses a bomb site.
-
Less than a hundred B-17 had been made by the time of the BoB, and those early B-17 B and C were far from as effective as the later F and G models. The RAF were the first to use the B-17 in combat and they were so unimpressed with the performance that the B-17 was quickly relegated to other duties, mostly coastal defense. They were simply unable to hit their targets and the machine guns froze up, leaving them defenseless. RAF's experience with the Fortress I showed both the RAF and USAAF that the B-17C was not ready for combat, and that improved defenses, larger bomb loads and more accurate bombing methods were required.
At $238,329 per aircraft the production cost of the B-17 also made it completely unacceptable for a BoB-era Luftwaffe. A Ju 88A-5 cost only RM 196,825 ... $46,863 in 1940's currency conversion. The Luftwaffe could get five Ju 88's for the price of one B-17, and the Ju 88 could carry the same bomb load as early B-17's.
Further more the whole of the British Isles were already within the range of Luftwaffe bombers so the B-17's greater range is irrelevant. The Luftwaffe even bombed a number of cities and towns in Ireland. Very few Luftwaffe bombing raids were turned back by the RAF the vast majority of raids reached their targets. The 110 in operation during the BoB did not have better performance than the Spitfire at high altitudes. The 110C in AH is an up-engined version that is not representative of the BoB 110's.
The Luftwaffe was already bombing British infrastructure, but just like the Germans did later in the war the British had decentralized their war industry. The Germans were unable to locate and identify the British war producing "cottage-industry", and the Luftwaffe's strategic efforts were as ineffective in stopping the British war production as the USAAF's later effort against German war production.
As always your comments are nothing but fantasy and wishful thinking. The only thing that could have won the Germans the BoB was to concentrate on the tactical destruction of the RAF and their airfields. The Luftwaffe's switch to strategic bombing and terror bombing lost them the battle ... and probably the war.
Its pretty obvious that you have little understanding of the history of the luftwaffe or the real issues that shaped the BoB.
The seeds for the luftwaffe were planted by Gen Hans Von Seekt in the early 1920's. He selected and nurture the original cadre of officers who would later create the luftwaffe. In 1933 the appointment of Erhard Milch began the transition of the "civil" air industry into the true luftwaffe. The chief advocate and pioneer of what would be considered the modern airforce in europe during the post WW1 era was Giulio Douhet. Hitler, Milch and the "senior brain trust" of the luftwaffe were all proponents of this new "air power". Max Wever was selected as the original Chief of the Air staff and a very forward looking strategic role for the luftwaffe was laid (the Luftkriegfuhrung). The 1st and most pressing need the new mandate required was A bomber that could fly around Britain from its base in Germany (direct quote from Milch).
General Wever was a strong proponent of a true strategic airforce and immediately began to lay the frame work needed to bring Douhet's vision to life.
The following is a summery of his speech at the 1935 opening of the air war academy taken from an other source...
He stated that "the realms of the air are not restricted to the fronts of the Army; they are above and behind the army, over the coasts and seas, over the whole nation and over the whole of the enemy's territory." Wever went on to advocate the doctrine of attack, stressing the offensive. He asserted that "the bomber is the decisive factor in aerial warfare." He warned that it was not sufficient to establish defense with only defensive weapons, instead the initiative must be taken and this meant that "the enemy bomber formations should be attacked at their most vulnerable moment; when they are on the ground taking on fresh fuel and ammunition and reservicing." In terms of established air policy, emphasis was first on the surprise attack of enemy air forces followed by attacks upon other vital enemy centers of gravity. "An initial assault by the Luftwaffe was to be directed against the enemy air force, including its supporting aircraft and aero-engine factories and ground installations, in order to gain air superiority from the outset."
General Wever was killed in a flying accident the following year and the army began to exercise a greater influence over the supposedly independent luftwaffe. From the army's perspective the role of the luftwaffe was "the role of airpower was simply to allow the maneuvers of the ground forces as much freedom as possible.". This eventually led to a focus on dive bombing vs level bombing and an operational doctrine focused on pinpoint vs area bombing and operational level bombing at lower altitudes. It led to cancelation of the JU-86 and delayed the Ju-88 development significantly and eliminated any true strategic bomber.
So when the JU-881A arrived it had a max speed of 258 mph a range of 550 miles and a 2000 bomb load. When loaded to maximum capacity it had a range of only 250 miles and a top speed of 190 mph....but with a top flight crew it could deliver 50% its bombs in a 50M radius in a dive bombing attack.
Alot of factors from the lack of quality engines to limited and lower octane fuel supplies also played a part, but the real issue here was that the army simply overrode the luftwaffe's goal to develope a true heavy bomber (4 of which were in development in 1936).
This led to operational doctrines and planes tailored to low altitude level bombing and/or dive bombing and operational combat at altitudes that favored the british. This led to very high bomber attrition (so bad that only 1 experienced officer per plane was allowed) and tied german fighters to an ineffective close escort role which maximized there own casualties and minimized there effectiveness vs there british counterparts...
So in 1940 the Germans had the 109/110/He-111/Ju-88...basically the same airforce they finished the war with.
If we look across the ocean to the US...the B-17 was already in production and the XP-38 had set a speed record in 1939. So the US had both the fighter and the bomber that would 1st reach Berlin "on the books" in the 1930's. Whats funny is that the US and germans drew such different conclusions from the spanish civil war where the germans saw validation of there tactics and the americans saw all the shortfalls in both the german bombers and the 109 itself.
So while the german loss of the BoB can be argued as a command failure with a high measure of success the real underlying issue was the failure to implement the Luftkriegfuhrung as originally conceived, which led to obvious shortcomings in equipment not suited to a strategic campaign and relagated the luftwaffe to much more marginalized role then originally hoped for. In the end Germany lost the airwar in 1944 because of choices it made in 1937...
-
If you were in charge of picking the airplanes that your country would have during a WWII-type war -- what 5 aircraft would you pick? Assume that the aircraft perform just as they do in Aces High, that you can pick any non-perk plane from Aces High, and that cost is not a factor. (These are what you'd pick for a real war, not just what you like flying best in the Main Arena.)
I'd go for the following:
P-47N. For fighter, fighter-bomber, and high-altitude escort. I'd pick this because of its range, speed, performance at altitude, lethality, ruggedness, and ability to carry a lot of ordnance. The P-51D is also a contender here for me, but the P-47N is more rugged and has more punch.
F4U-1D. For my carrier aircraft, both as fighter and divebomber; also as general fighter and fighter-bomber. It's faster than the F6F, outturns the F6F by a little, and carries more than the F6F in Aces High.
B-24J. For my heavy bomber. The Lancaster is a great plane, but its defense armament isn't nearly as good as the B-24 and B-17. I'd pick the B-24 over the B-17 because the B-24 is a little faster and carries a bit more, yet has the same good defensive armament.
B-25H. With cannon, for ground attack and attack against ground vehicles. The cannon is a great weapon against ground vehicles and buildings. I'd pick it over the Il-2 as it carries more bombs and especially because of the cannon.
Spitfire Mk XVI. For quick-climbing field defense and intercept. This would be a base-defense fighter and a fighter to use when you need to get up in a hurry to intercept things.
A "real" one?
F4U4 - jack (and master) of all trades.
P51D - long range escort.
B17G - strat buffing.
A20G - Tac buffing.
C47 - Misc. rear area transport of men and material.
-
My answer would depend on if I can get other versions of the airframes or if I only get the airframes actually in the game.
If we are talking basic airframe and we get the different versions:
C-47
F4U
Il-2
Mosquito
P-47
If we only get the models in the game:
C-47
F4U-4
Mosquito FB.Mk VI
P-47N
B-17G
I think a lot of you are overlooking the need for a transport plane. :P
-
looking at cost v effectiveness (including pilot training etc.)
Ground attack / battle field interdiction IL2M3
Low alt air superiority/escort La7
Medium alt air superiority Spit XVI
High alt air superiority P47N
Longe range interdiction Mossie
Long range strat bomber B24 (Ohh for a Mk XVII Mossie!!)
Long range bomber escort P51D
Bomber interceptor Ta 152
-
I think a lot of you are overlooking the need for a transport plane. :P
Once I remove the armor plate, I can just carry everything I want in my 109 :P
-
It's amazing how many have not followed the instructions: just 5 aircraft, and no perk planes.
-
Ok. By the rules:
F4U-1D: Carrier fighter and strike fighter and all round interceptor. Rugged and high performance.
Mosquito FB.Mk VI: Multi-role, long range strike aircraft, night fighter and heavy fighter. Fast, rugged and very long ranged.
P-47N: Long range escort fighter and back up ground attack fighter. Great high alt performance coupled with long range.
B-17G: Rugged, well armed bomber with good altitude performance.
C-47: Needed transport.
-
The B-17 entered US service in 1937 and was completely deployed by the end of 1938. As a point of arguement lets give the luftwaffe those B-17s for the BOB. The 110's actually had better performance at altitude then the british hurricanes and spitfires did and a range of roughly 1500 miles. So the germans would have been operating a strategic airforce from bases beyond the range of british fighters and screened by 109 bases. The 109's would have been completely free of any escort duties and the 110's would have been operating at higher alts where they had equal or better performance to the british planes who were attempting to intercept B-17s at 26K+ with .303 armed fighters. As british losses mounted and manufacturing, infrastructure, supply and morale were attrited german tactical bombers could attack targets of opportunity and 110's would be able (with there much greater range) to sweep down on british fighters attempting to land and rearm after staging and then attacking the buffs. England would have lost both the BOB and the war in 90 days had the germans had just a few hundred B-17's.
The germans certainly had the capability to build an equivelent plane, they just didnt see the need. If they had WW2 would have ended before the US ever couldhave gotten involved...
Think you are over complicating it Humble :)
All I think Brooke was asking was given you were going to war with 5 WW2 aircraft from those we have in AH, which would they be. What might have beens don't matter in terms of the question.
Not that the discussion can't be fun, but in terms of what he was asking, it was much more simple. Not a slight of the LW or RAF or anyone else.
-
hmmm... what would I pick.
P-39D/Q (ground attack)
P-47D-40 (better than the -N unless it is long range)
Spit Mk. XVI (always need a good turner)
B-17 (always need bombers)
and the last plane is always a tough one for my needs. But I'm gonna pick....
F4U-4 (the best of the F4Us, great turner, best speed, Good altitude, average-great range, great ordinance) If I wanted, I could just make these fight and forget about the B-17s and replace them with something else if needed :aok
-
It's amazing how many have not followed the instructions: just 5 aircraft, and no perk planes.
Sorry, missed that part. Sub my F4U4 with a F4U-1D.
I'm personally perplexed at those that choose the P-51D over the P-47N for long-range escort duty...
-
P-51
P-51
P-51
P-51
-
I'm personally perplexed at those that choose the P-51D over the P-47N for long-range escort duty...
Try flying them both at 30k feet.
-
Sorry, missed that part. Sub my F4U4 with a F4U-1D.
I'm personally perplexed at those that choose the P-51D over the P-47N for long-range escort duty...
shoot, same here, F4U4 replaced with the F4U-1D, srry
-
Sorry, missed that part. Sub my F4U4 with a F4U-1D.
I'm personally perplexed at those that choose the P-51D over the P-47N for long-range escort duty...
Agreed.
I am also perplexed by those who aren't taking the Mosquito, probably the single most versatile aircraft of WWII and when limited to 5 aircraft versatility becomes king.
-
Sorry, missed that part. Sub my F4U4 with a F4U-1D.
I'm personally perplexed at those that choose the P-51D over the P-47N for long-range escort duty...
The p47N has a combat range of 1350 miles with maxed drops (I/m guessing that radius with full drops at cruise {200mph for the N}). The pony has significantly greater range at a higher crise speed (275 mph)...so for long haul bomber strikes it was the better escort. The P-51D set a cross polar record of over 9 1/2 hours/& well over 3000 miles. I forget who said it but it the quote summed up the pony nicely....it was something along these lines. "The pony wasnt special because of what it could do, it was special because it could do it over Berlin"
-
Agreed.
I am also perplexed by those who aren't taking the Mosquito, probably the single most versatile aircraft of WWII and when limited to 5 aircraft versatility becomes king.
Mossie had 1/2 the bomb load of the A-20 and no real level bombing capability.
-
Mossie had 1/2 the bomb load of the A-20 and no real level bombing capability.
A-20G has no level bombing capability either and is much less survivable than the Mosquito FB.Mk VI.
If we extend it to other versions of the two aircraft, well, I just have to say "Mosquito B.Mk IV, B.Mk IX, B.Mk XVI had no level bombing capability?" :O I think you need to reread Mosquito history before you make claims about it. Mosquito B.Mk XVI could carry the same load as the B-17 to Berlin and do it much, much faster with much, much lower loss rates. There are reasons that Boston Mk III crews were excited to get Mosquito B.Mk IVs.
-
The p47N has a combat range of 1350 miles with maxed drops (I/m guessing that radius with full drops at cruise {200mph for the N}). The pony has significantly greater range at a higher crise speed (275 mph)...so for long haul bomber strikes it was the better escort. The P-51D set a cross polar record of over 9 1/2 hours/& well over 3000 miles. I forget who said it but it the quote summed up the pony nicely....it was something along these lines. "The pony wasnt special because of what it could do, it was special because it could do it over Berlin"
The Pony mission was 10.5 hours and 3300 miles from Norway to Alaska over the N. Pole. Not a typical combat profile there at all.
According to the P-47N POH, a typical long range combat mission carrying 2 X 165 gal wing and 1 X 110 gal belly tanks allows for 900 miles using external fuel only, 20 mins of fuel for combat, and enough internal fuel to fly 1400 miles on the return trip.
According to the P-51D POH, max operating range with 2 X 75 gal wing tanks was 1600 miles (it doesn't present a combat mission scenario like the P-47N, so I don't know if that includes fuel for combat.)
Furthermore, the P-47N squadrons on Ie Shima would fly to Korea carrying rockets and a single 500 lb bomb. That's 1500 miles round trip, with ordnance, and with enough gas to get the bombs off and operate at combat power settings for 15 minutes.
-
A-20G has no level bombing capability either and is much less survivable than the Mosquito FB.Mk VI.
If we extend it to other versions of the two aircraft, well, I just have to say "Mosquito B.Mk IV, B.Mk IX, B.Mk XVI had no level bombing capability?" :O I think you need to reread Mosquito history before you make claims about it. Mosquito B.Mk XVI could carry the same load as the B-17 to Berlin and do it much, much faster with much, much lower loss rates. There are reasons that Boston Mk III crews were excited to get Mosquito B.Mk IVs.
The XVI normally carried 6 x 500 lb bombs and had a maximum load of a 4000 lb "cookie" bomb.
The B-17 had a normal combat load of between 4,500 and 8,000 lbs but had a maximum capacity of 17,000 lbs of bombs.
Technically the A-20G did not have any level bombing capacity either in AH, I was lumping the boston as equivelent to the C or J model...which could be construed as a "cheat". Within the limit of the plane set the A-20 was a much more effective and widely used ground attack aircraft. While the mossie carried out a number of high profile percision attacks it doesnt seem to have been used in the ground attack role anywhere near as much as either the tempest or typhoon.
No question the speed and high alt capability of the XVI was very impressive, from my limited knowledge it was used almost exclusively as a night bomber.
Arguements for the mossie, 110 and IL-2 (as represented in AH) could all be made. From my perspective the A-20 has the largest bomb load (most important aspect) and significant direct fire capability {less then the others since it has no cannon here} but based on historical noted very little damage was done to armor by cannon compared to bombs and .50 cals were very effective vs rail, trucks and other "soft" targets..
So in my mind the A-20 provides better ground interdiction while the P-38 provides better "fighter/bomber" capability in a dual role. Offering greater payload then the mossie here with superior air to air capability. so the P-51 is your primary strategic/forward area fighter. The P-38 provides air cap over the battlefield/ground attack and the spitXIV provides point defense...all three functioned with a high measure of success in all 3 roles (obviously with the spits range limits taken into consideration)...mean while the B-24 gives the best payload at slightly higher potential loss compared to the B-17 and the A-20 provides the biggest tac air payload in the game in a plane optimized for dive bombing/interdiction of both ground forces and supply vs the other options.
No question the mossie would be more survivable in some missions then the A-20, but it would be less effective overall..
Recognizing that the in game numbers arent automatically an accurate real world portrayal its interesting to note that the a-20 has a positive K/D ratio every tour I looked at (late war) while the Mossie is negative every tour. The 110G2 fares even worse...while the IL-2 compares well with similiar numbers to the A-20. Given uncertain operational tasking the a-20s advantage in range and bombload gives it the nod...
-
The Pony mission was 10.5 hours and 3300 miles from Norway to Alaska over the N. Pole. Not a typical combat profile there at all.
According to the P-47N POH, a typical long range combat mission carrying 2 X 165 gal wing and 1 X 110 gal belly tanks allows for 900 miles using external fuel only, 20 mins of fuel for combat, and enough internal fuel to fly 1400 miles on the return trip.
According to the P-51D POH, max operating range with 2 X 75 gal wing tanks was 1600 miles (it doesn't present a combat mission scenario like the P-47N, so I don't know if that includes fuel for combat.)
Furthermore, the P-47N squadrons on Ie Shima would fly to Korea carrying rockets and a single 500 lb bomb. That's 1500 miles round trip, with ordnance, and with enough gas to get the bombs off and operate at combat power settings for 15 minutes.
I was using the official P-47N testing stuff available on line which shows 800 miles internal at 200 mph vs 1000 miles internal at 275 for the pony. Combat radius for the N is given at 1350 with max external tanks. that would be 2700 miles total for the N vs 3200 for the pony. I'm certainly not an expert on this one, my limited understanding is that the cruise power settings for long range didnt really provide for practical speeds and that dialing up enough power to maintain a higher speed (similiar to the pony) drastically reduced the range on the N.
-
Humble, I’m unwilling to continue this hijacking of yours, so I’ve responded to you in a new thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,232277.0.html
-
In Aces High, the P-51D and the P-47N seem to have comparable ranges. It's a little hard to compare, though. The P-51D with max fuel available (i.e., with max drop tanks) in AH has, at full power and sea level, 131 minutes of duration of flying. At its max-cruise settings, it gets 254 minutes of duration of flying. At max cruise, it has a sea-level speed of 282 mph.
The P-47N with max fuel available has, at full power and sea level, 157 minutes of duration of flying. At its max-cruise settings, it gets 357 minutes duration of flying. However, the max-cruise settings for the P-47N have if flying along very, very slowly with max fuel load. If I set it so that it gets 254 minutes duration of flying, it has a cruise speed of 278 mph. Thus, at this power setting, it will get about the same range as a P-51D.
This is all at sea level. I'm not sure how it would all pan out at high altitude (although I may test it, too). I suspect the P-47N would have the edge there, as it has a turbocharger (which has a very high critical altitude) whereas the P-51D has a two-speed supercharger (which has a critical altitude at about 25k, above which engine power starts to drop off).
-
The Mosquito is a great plane, but compared to the version in AH, the P-47N is allowed to carry more lbs of ord and (once done with the ord) is much faster.
-
I chose the B-24 as my level bomber since cost is not an issue (per the rules) and since the bomber Mosquitoes are not modeled. If they were I would choose a bomber Mosquito instead.
-
I tested the P-51D and P-47N at 30k both with max external fuel. Flying the P-51D at 2500 RPM and max manifold (as close to max cruise settings as you can get), it has 270 minutes duration, 316 mph true.
The P-47N, adjusted to have the same flying duration (270 minutes), also flies there at 316 mph true. So, under those conditions, they have the same exact range. If you worked it so that you drew from your center drop tank in the P-47N then dropped the empty center drop tank, you might end up having a little more range and speed than the P-51D at 30k alt.
At 25k (best altitude for the P-51D), the P-51D flying (at 2500 RPM) has much more range than the P-47N if the P-47N is trying to match the P-51D's speed. Here, the P-47N would have to fly more slowly to get a comparable range to the P-51D.
At sea level, the P-51D has 81 minutes internal fuel and the P-47N has 93 minutes internal fuel, so again, even on internal fuel, the two are going to be very similar here in range.
By the way, in case anyone wants to replicate my numbers, I just realized I have offline set the fuel burn multiplier to 1.213 (not 1), as it is still set for what we often use in scenarios.
The P-38L, adjusted to have the same duration of flying time at 30k, doesn't have the same speed and thus range as the P-51D or P-47N with the max external fuel that AH allows it to carry.
-
I was using the official P-47N testing stuff available on line which shows 800 miles internal at 200 mph vs 1000 miles internal at 275 for the pony. Combat radius for the N is given at 1350 with max external tanks. that would be 2700 miles total for the N vs 3200 for the pony. I'm certainly not an expert on this one, my limited understanding is that the cruise power settings for long range didnt really provide for practical speeds and that dialing up enough power to maintain a higher speed (similiar to the pony) drastically reduced the range on the N.
First, where did you find a resource that quoted a 1600 mile combat radius for the P-51D? Second, how do you think that Pony made 3300 miles? It certainly wasn't doing 275 mph to leg that out. Plus, it would have had to be carrying the 110 gallon wing tanks, which according to the POH "places near limit loads on the wings and bomb racks". If we put the 330 gallon wing tanks on the P-47N and the 110 gallon belly tank, you're talking about 770 gallons external, which is twice what I used (if we're going to compare extreme capability beyone that which was used in combat missions). I was going with realistic combat loading and the operating charts published for both planes. According to the operating charts, at 25,000 feet, the P-47N could make 300 mph TAS on 180 or so gph. It broke down to 1.9 air miles per gallon. Cruise power settings for max range didn't provide practical combat speeds, but when you're legging it out over distance to a target, then trying to get back, cruise power settings were used exclusively. Those missions to Korea and mainland Japan from Ie Shima sometimes lasted 12 hours +/-. Even sipping the most minimal amounts of fuel, the P-51 couldn't stretch out 12 hours of endurance. Not to mention that the P-47N pilot can flip the rudder pedals, set the auto pilot, and dream of Suzie while he flies.
Just to put it in perspective, and paraphrasing Widewings website, a test was performed by a P-47N. It departed New York, flew to Florida, engaged a P-47D40 in a mock dogfight for 20 minutes (including 15 mins at military and 5 minutes on WEP), then flew back to New York, and then diverted to another field in New Jersey for weather. It flew all the way to Florida on simply the external tanks, albeit the 330 gallon ones.
You are correct to say that at combat power settings, the Jug was burning twice (or a little more) the fuel as the Pony. Of course, it carried almost 3 times the internal fuel of the P-51, and almost 3 times the external fuel of the P-51. The P-51 was an awesome, efficient escort fighter. But it didn't have nearly the legs of the Jug N.
Finally, the max cruise settings in Aces High are no where near the actual "max" cruise settings. The P-47N POH shows 1700 RPM and 31" of MP for periods where "time is not a factor" (this is a low altitude setting). Another issue is the lack of the 110 gallon belly tank in AH. That extra 35 gallons can add 15-20 minutes to the P-47N max cruise endurance. So, if this is a discussion about what we would fly in the real world, we should compare real world operating factors. My list of 5 would be completely different had the question been "its real life in the MA, and what 5 planes would you fly".
I'll admit I'm a P-47 fanboi :) I'd be interested in seeing Brooke's comparison of the aircraft at altitude. I'll do a little messing around with minimum cruise settings and see what I come up with for absolute range for both.
<S>
Stoney
-
I tested the P-51D and P-47N at 30k both with max external fuel. Flying the P-51D at 2500 RPM and max manifold (as close to max cruise settings as you can get), it has 270 minutes duration, 316 mph true.
The P-47N, adjusted to have the same flying duration (270 minutes), also flies there at 316 mph true. So, under those conditions, they have the same exact range. If you worked it so that you drew from your center drop tank in the P-47N then dropped the empty center drop tank, you might end up having a little more range and speed than the P-51D at 30k alt.
At 25k (best altitude for the P-51D), the P-51D flying (at 2500 RPM) has much more range than the P-47N if the P-47N is trying to match the P-51D's speed. Here, the P-47N would have to fly more slowly to get a comparable range to the P-51D.
At sea level, the P-51D has 81 minutes internal fuel and the P-47N has 93 minutes internal fuel, so again, even on internal fuel, the two are going to be very similar here in range.
By the way, in case anyone wants to replicate my numbers, I just realized I have offline set the fuel burn multiplier to 1.213 (not 1), as it is still set for what we often use in scenarios.
The P-38L, adjusted to have the same duration of flying time at 30k, doesn't have the same speed and thus range as the P-51D or P-47N with the max external fuel that AH allows it to carry.
If you match speeds, it won't be a true comparison of maximum range. Merely a comparison of range at a certain speed.
-
Face it... most of you were in love with the P-51 since 1st grade and can't fathom that something as ugly as the Jug could be better. :lol
-
Ok,
Did some testing offline. I also forgot that the P-47N wing tanks in service were 165 vice the 150 we have in game. So total fuel discrepancy would be 65 gallons, counting the wing and belly tank.
Obviously I didn't fly a 10 hour test flight to confirm, but based on specific engine consumption, I think I can get at least 2400 miles out of the Jug in game. The P-51D looks like it could go 2000-2200.
The secret is that as the fuel weight is burned off the plane, you can reduce power slightly and maintain the same speed, hence burning less fuel. An example is that I flew almost 200 miles with the range counter on the E6B showing a range of 1400 miles. When I punched the belly tank, I still had 500 miles + potential left in the wing tanks. Get the wing tanks to 1/2 full, which burns off 900 lbs, and that 500+ would turn into 6-700 miles at least. With the plane clean, 1800 rpm and 32" was showing me somewhere in the range of 1000 miles, which again, would stretch out to something close to the book value of 1400 miles. Add all that up, and you have about 22-2400 miles. That would be roughly 13 hours of flight time, which I don't care to test to the end :) I don't even want to know what I'd get with the 330 gal wing tanks.
The Pony would certainly get there sooner, as 1600 RPM and 33" MP resulted in about 220 true with tanks, and 240 true without compared to the P-47 maintaining about 200 true. I tested by taking off, backing power down to normal rated as soon as I rotated. I climbed slowly to 4000 feet MSL and leveled off, letting both planes accelerate to 200 true for the Jug, and 250 true for the Pony. Then I backed the power down to the min cruise settings listed in both POH's.
-
Wouldn't both planes cruise at higher than 4kft if they had a long way to go?
-
Humble,
On missions to Berlin the B-17 usually carried 4,000lbs of bombs. The same as the Mosquito B.Mk XVI, which most often carried a 'cookie'.
-
I'd have to dig back thru, there wasnt enough supporting documentation to really understand the context...just numbers in tables.
It's entirely possible the M was equal or better, I just am unaware it ever did escort duty either in the ETO or PAC so I am assuming (correctly or otherwise) that the P-51 was the preferred plane.
Karnak the minimum load was 4,000 for a B-17. I've seen a variety of figures on average bomb loads and most support the 6,000 we have in game. That is the official "average load" listed for the national museum of the USAF and most other sources I check. From my limited reading the 6/x 500 lb bombload was more typical for the mossie. As it relates to the thread here the typical mossie had 1500 lbs for ground attack from what I've read...
-
Karnak the minimum load was 4,000 for a B-17. I've seen a variety of figures on average bomb loads and most support the 6,000 we have in game. That is the official "average load" listed for the national museum of the USAF and most other sources I check. From my limited reading the 6/x 500 lb bombload was more typical for the mossie. As it relates to the thread here the typical mossie had 1500 lbs for ground attack from what I've read...
That is the average load, not the average load to Berlin. Note the difference.
-
Wouldn't both planes cruise at higher than 4kft if they had a long way to go?
Actually, its somewhat counter-intuitive, but to fly the longest distance with the least fuel, you should fly as close to the ground as possible. Lindbergh flew to Paris at 50 feet over the water, for example.
One of the differences between ETO and PTO was that in ETO, an hours worth of flight time or less had you over enemy territory. In the Pacific, late in the war, you might have 3-4 hours of flying before you got to mainland Japan. So, the technique for the VLR missions was for outbound cruise to be flown down low, climb to reach the objective at combat altitude, then RTB at low altitude.
-
I'd never heard about that, thanks! This was because of ground effect? High altitude flight is less expensive in fuel than, say, 5kft, right?
-
I'm not sure I believe it though. If it was true wouldn't commercial aviation try to fly as low as possible instead of as high as possible?
As for the low flying pacific missions, isn't it more believable that they did it for navigational reasons? The higher you fly the stronger the winds and with no landmarks to navigate by...
-
Actually, its somewhat counter-intuitive, but to fly the longest distance with the least fuel, you should fly as close to the ground as possible. Lindbergh flew to Paris at 50 feet over the water, for example.
Lindbergh flew low because fully loaded Spirit of St. Louis couldn't climb at all, it was lacking the instrumentation and because it was powered by the engine with no supercharger, suitable to max 5000ft under best conditions and much lighter airframes.
For WWII planes, best cruise altitude was determined solely on mission profile and the capability of the airframe/engine. In any case, cruise altitudes where often low because of environmental reasons (no pressurization, limited oxygen supply, temperatures).
Anyways, the best speed altitude is usually the most economical in terms of fuel burn but it costs to climb to that alt.
-
If you match speeds, it won't be a true comparison of maximum range. Merely a comparison of range at a certain speed.
I matched duration and looked at speeds, which then gives range. The only reason I did it this way, though, is that it would take a long time to figure out best settings to get maximum range in AH (as you have to wait for speed to get to steady state after any engine adjustment to be able to figure out range). Max cruise is not really max range in AH, and max cruise for one plane might be closer to the true optimum range than max cruise for another plane. For example, max cruise settings for the P-47N had the plane flying at stall speed with full external fuel and at a speed where the autopilot could not maintain altitude. So, I couldn't compare both set at their max cruise settings. What then to pick? I decided to use the P-51D's max cruise settings (as it could fly just fine at those settings), noted speed, duration, and range; then I set the P-47N to have the same duration, and noted speed and range. Or I could have set the P-47N to have the same speed and noted duration and range; but matching speeds takes a long time of fiddling, whereas matching duration is very easy with just a quick RPM adjustment.
-
I'm not sure I believe it though. If it was true wouldn't commercial aviation try to fly as low as possible instead of as high as possible?
As for the low flying pacific missions, isn't it more believable that they did it for navigational reasons? The higher you fly the stronger the winds and with no landmarks to navigate by...
Remember, we're talking about piston powered aircraft here. Jet engine propulsion works entirely the opposite of piston power--for jets, generally speaking, the higher they fly the more efficient the engines are. Peter Garrison, the designer of Melmoth and Melmoth 2, did an article in Flying magazine a few years ago where he discussed the mechanics of maximizing range. I can't remember the details, but the underlying theory is that the fuel spent climbing to altitude is never fully recovered as a result of the higher speeds at altitude, and therefore, in order to fly the maximum range, flying at sea level will take you the most miles. This makes no consideration for time, which is important to consider. Obviously, to fly a certain distance in the least time, climbing to altitude will become more efficient--typically whatever altitude has the most favorable winds for propellor aircraft.
This theory is what Lindbergh taught the P-38 crews and others when he went to the Pacific--how to maximize their combat radius through the use of "off-chart" power settings, manual leaning, etc.
Anyway, if we're talking about the plane with the longest reach, the P-47N outlasts the P-51D.
-
That's clear, thank you.
-
I'm not sure I believe it though. If it was true wouldn't commercial aviation try to fly as low as possible instead of as high as possible?
As for the low flying pacific missions, isn't it more believable that they did it for navigational reasons? The higher you fly the stronger the winds and with no landmarks to navigate by...
Most late-war fighters in the Pacific had an RDF system for navigation. RDF was line of sight, thus flying low means you will not be able to obtain a signal. I seem to recall that this was the AN/ARN-7 radio compass.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I matched duration and looked at speeds, which then gives range. The only reason I did it this way, though, is that it would take a long time to figure out best settings to get maximum range in AH (as you have to wait for speed to get to steady state after any engine adjustment to be able to figure out range). Max cruise is not really max range in AH, and max cruise for one plane might be closer to the true optimum range than max cruise for another plane. For example, max cruise settings for the P-47N had the plane flying at stall speed with full external fuel and at a speed where the autopilot could not maintain altitude. So, I couldn't compare both set at their max cruise settings. What then to pick? I decided to use the P-51D's max cruise settings (as it could fly just fine at those settings), noted speed, duration, and range; then I set the P-47N to have the same duration, and noted speed and range. Or I could have set the P-47N to have the same speed and noted duration and range; but matching speeds takes a long time of fiddling, whereas matching duration is very easy with just a quick RPM adjustment.
You're partially correct. It was interesting for me to note last night that, when using the power/rpm settings in the P-47N POH, I couldn't hold altitude at 5000 feet. That's something I'm going to look into later as the POH says you should be able to hold altitude at that loading with 1900RPM and 33.5" MP. But, I did manage around 190 TAS on 2100 RPM, and 35" of MP, which gave me a fuel burn of about 115 gph. Once the belly tank was off, I was able to maintain altitude on 1900 RPM and 34" of MP, which dropped the fuel burn to right around 100 gph. Once the wing tanks were off, I was able to maintain altitude on 1700 RPM and 31" of MP, which dropped the fuel burn down to around 80 or so GPH. So, flying around 190-200 mph TAS, you can easily make in excess of 2000 miles for the P-47N in game. I'll do some more testing to see if I can come up with some hard numbers.
But, duration changes as the weight of fuel, and drag of tanks is removed, if flying at a constant speed, since lower power settings are available at the lower weights/drag. So, theoretically, the duration number would continue to stretch out until you ultimately ran out of fuel. According to the POH, the 2X165 and 1X110 external tanks (440 total gallons) were capable of taking you 900 miles, but almost the same amount of internal fuel could take you 1400 on the trip back.
So, merely looking at the duration shown on the E6B at the start of the flight won't give you an accurate representation of the true max range.
-
Hmmm...in AH, when I need to bomb something big,,,,Lancaster.
When I need a mp fighter with good maneuverability and speed as well as ROC and the ability to kill a Spixteen....Spitfire VIII....or something fast like the Tempest.
Long legged fighter....P51
Medium bomber with bombsight....B26
Carrier plane....probably F4U
On the horizon would be either the Mossie or the 110 as attackers, but a CHog will also do just fine ;=)
-
I would rather join the army than fly a B5N2 into combat.
why? dives great, decent bomb load for attacking GVs, takes off very very quickly with full flaps (basically floats off deck)
-
why? dives great, decent bomb load for attacking GVs, takes off very very quickly with full flaps (basically floats off deck)
It's a sitting duck.
-
109F/G/K series
190a8
Me-262
Ju88 or He 111 for bomber
-
Huh...
38G - fighter role
38J - fighter/attack
38L - fighter/ground targets
F6F - great turn rate and good CV plane
(If we can pick a german plane...234)
(If we can't pick a german plane...B26)
-
P47M for all around attributes.
-
Shoot, if we had the 47M, I'd freaking replace that with the B-17 and replace my D-40 with the P-47N. :devil
-
While it is correct that the Pony and the Jug and the Corsair could take a good cannon load out.
The rule of this contest is "the non perked version in AH"
The presumptive rule that the other nations are limited to 5 AH planes as well should be stated.
People who have taken 50 cal armed planes exclusively will have a rude awakening when they have to intercept the other guys B24s.
Save one of your picks for the 190A8 or you will have no families to go home to and incredible attrition of pilots.
Given the Choice of the Hog D, Pony D or Jug N for a heavy escort fighter, I would take the Hog D. Efficient choice under the rules.
You have to save one pick for the C47 or you will lose to guys that have it.
You have to decide if you are going to have a carrier bomber or not.
Myself, I would just load my decks with Corsair Ds
Strat bomber is the lancaster, No night fighters in AH so it will be very safe indeed thank you.
A medium bomber that can carry Torps is the most flexible, If the B26 had its torp load out in the game it would win hands down, but I dont think it does so its the Ju88
for daylight and tactical and torp attacks.
And then the Spit XVI for point defense, and newby pilots.
So I guess I have the
Corsair D
C 47
Lancaster
Ju88
Spit XVI
Definatly I could have some issues at very high alts with someone who picked planes that are superlative at height, and on the deck with someone who took the La7.
But I have amongst the best long range and heavy hitting fighter in the war, and it works on carriers.
I have my logistical aircraft
I have a heavy bomber that is really un interceptable by the enemy.
A very flexible Medium bomber.
And a great pure fighter.
My interceptor is a bit lightly armed to fight US heavies, but at least it does have cannons.
-
My pick would be:
109-G2 - Fast and turney, vastly underrated, for field defense
Mossie - Quickest way to deliver jabo ord
B-24 - For those big bombs of love
190-A5 - Anti-bomber & escort
Ki-84 - Allround excellent performer
I could live with those 5.
Here is my list though.
Yak-9U ~ Defense Fighter, very fast.
B-17 ~ Its good at dropping bombs. really good.
109G-14 ~ All around fighter. its different load-outs give it many uses.
P-38J/L ~ Jabo usage. Long range could also let it be escort.
FW-190D-9 ~ High alt interceptor against bombers.
-
all i need is my P-47,a6m, and FM-2
-BigBOBCH