Well here is what i suggest:
MPH Cap on the bombers. No faster than 180-230MPH
they only flew at full power only on take off and even when climbing out they used a lower power setting.
Closure rates were much higher i assume than what they appear to be in Aces High
bombers flew at max cruise settings to conserve fuel.
So why don't we set a MPH cap for the bombers to a reasonable MPH that won't make the buffs sitting bath tubs but won't allow the closure rate of the escorts to be a snail and tortoise race.
And a buff alt cap is easiest of all to enforce.
There is nothing a-historical about buffs being at 22K.
Started a new thread since I figured it would need one.
So, is that 180-230mph TAS or IAS? 180 TAS at 22,000 feet is close to stall speed for a fully loaded B-17.
I can show you how they flew at full power on other occasions. You think fighters flew at full throttle all the way to Berlin and back?
Like what? What exactly was the typical closure rate? Throw a number out there that you got from a source and quote the source.
What exactly is the best "max cruise setting" for a B-17 carrying 6,000lbs of bombs at 25,000 feet for 8 to 10 hours?
Strangely enough, well over one half of all Allied bombers were shot down. Seems to me they were "sitting bath tubs" even with only 100-150 mph speed differentials between they and the German interceptors.
*Typical style of attack from luftwaffe interceptors from the front quarters. If you do the math you can basically find out a closure rate nearing 200-300 MPH difference! B17 Leveled at 22,000ft cruising 200-230PMH TAS vs a Fw190 making a Head On pass on the bomber stream- 400+ MPH TAS = 200+ mph closure rate differential...I was just suggesting a alternative approach seeing as that the topic of closure rate of the bombers was too low but apparently I've become the target of my own opinion it seems.
From my personal experiences flying the B-17 before i went all luft I would proceed to level the bombers for max cruise or normal power at 200-220mph TAS, 200-220mph IAS and you're already stalling and the engines aren't generating enough power to provide lift to maintain level flight.
snip>>>
apparently I've become the target of my own opinion it seems.
Krusty,
I have attached the power charts for the B-17G and the PB4Y-1 (B-24D) to give you an idea of the maximum continuous power settings.
B-17G
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/Stuff/B-17Gpwrsettings.jpg)
PB4Y-1
please note section III "normal rated continuous operation"
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/Stuff/PB4Y-1pwrsettings.jpg)
I flew the B-24 in the last frame, and my entire squadron flew the B-24 within it's maximum continuous power settings for the entire frame. That gave us a cursing speed of 283 mph true at 23,000 feet which is exactly what would have happened historically. So to try and place some artificial limits on something that is modeled CORRECTLY is not needed. In my opinion this points out how extremely difficult it was for the Luftwaffe to intercept the bombers in real life. From most of my reading of various Luftwaffe books it seems that the German pilots would only get one or two passes on the bombers (most of the time) before they would have to either extend significantly away to regroup or RTB.
At the end of 60 minutes, I had traveled almost exactly 10 sectors (250 miles). That's a pretty respectable distance, in my opinion. To climb to 30k before leveling would have taken about another 12-15 minutes, but would have cost somewhere in the neighborhood of about 75 miles in total range (3 sectors).
the numbers Stoney gives are misleading.
With 25% fuel...climbed to 20k on auto climb...ran until 60 minutes...traveled almost exactly 10 sectors (250 miles).
If you run 100% full throttle during climb and after you level off, there's no way you can keep a formation together. I would suggest running these types of tests at about 85% of available manifold in order to compensate for maintaining a formation.
Well, we can enforce the 100% fuel, but we can't reliably enforce the altitude restriction nor a speed restriction. The T+60 rule, in this case, also helps to limit the altitude, since at some point, the bombers have to stop climbing and start covering some ground. Another factor of the fuel burn is that the bombers will not lighten up like they do in the MA. If the bombers take off with 100%, they'll have 10 hours of endurance at the start, and 8.5 to 8 hours of endurance remaining at the end of the frame. Furthermore, they'll climb about 1/2 as fast as they do with 50% fuel. Frame 1, it was a struggle for the bombers to climb to 20,000 feet and make the target by T+60. Given the same distances to fly, they'll maybe make 12-15,000 feet over the same distance, and then fly at lower ground speeds to get to the target as a result of the lower altitude. They're taking off with almost 18,000lbs of fuel, and will land with around 12,000 lbs. So, lets think about the ramifications of that when we start talking about mandating 100% fuel at takeoff.
I'll stand by my previous statements regarding that the perception of typical bomber interceptions is wrong, and that the misperception is what's driving us to this, rather than either (a)historical operating procedures, (b)aerodynamic fundamentals, (c) any appreciation for the patience required for high-altitude bomber interception.
My $.02.
Whereas if I were a buff pilot, watching my speed would require alot closer attention to my piloting while I'm trying to watch television and B.S. with squaddies during the interminable ride to target.
I could always call my Grandpa and ask about his missions. He's shown me his log a few times. I'd love to be able to scan a copy of it.
He was in B-17s out of North Africa and Italy with the 97th Bomb Group.
Some folks actually enjoy bomber missions--try to keep the banter constructive.
In this game, even if a bomber goes down it usually accounts for 2-3 of its attackers before done (talking US bombers here, formations enabled).
...catch a 30K US bomber
The entire bomber system in this game is screwed up and doesn't "work" for historical use.
IMHO castrating the buffs to make up for poor leadership is nonsence. :salute
are being abused because they can be.
They dont take %100 fuel (against SOP in WWII)...
Typical speed was roughly 200, at least in the PTO in late 1943, and I doubt it was much different in the ETO.
So to try and place some artificial limits on something that is modeled CORRECTLY is not needed.
Until Aces High tries to approximate complex engine management there isn't much to be done here.
if thats a reply to my post, more complex engine managment isnt required. just the correct application of a time limit for WEP on heavy bombers in the same way as we already have for fighters. :)
Looking at Frame 1 and 2 the Luftwaffe have shot down a higher percentage of bombers than was ever achieved in any heavy bomber attack on Germany. If the 8th AF had this high of a loss rate the daylight bombing campaign would have been halted.
At the expense of a historically disproportionate % of Luftwaffe fighters. FSO pilots want to shoot something, even if it means death in the process, so the fact that bomber losses are higher than historical % isn't good evidence.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/Stuff/B-17G.jpg)
In my off-line testing I was only able to get 46.5 manifold pressure not 47.5.
| Setting | RPM | MP | duration |
| B-17G (AHII) | |||
| WEP | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Mil | 2500 | 47" | continuous |
| Normal | 2300 | 38" | continuous |
| Max Cruise | 2100 | 31" | continuous |
| B-17F (Operators Manual, 100 octane fuel) | |||
| Takeoff & Max Emergency | 2500 | 46" | 5min |
| Max Continuous | 2300 | 38" | continuous |
| Economical Maximum | 2100 | 31" | continuous |
| Recommended Cruising | 1400-2000 | 29" | continuous |
| B-17G (Baumer's Chart, 100/130 octane fuel) | |||
| WEP | 2500 | 54" | 5min |
| Takeoff/Mil | 2500 | 47.5" | 5min |
| Normal/Max Continuous | 2300 | 41.5" | continuous |
| Maximum Cruise | 2100 | 31" | continuous |
| Min Consumption | 1400 | 24" | continuous |
cant argue with the numbers
I assume the slightly increased manifold pressure in Baumer's data is due to the slightly higher octane fuel.
- Real B-17G were rated for 2500rpm/47" power settings for 5mins use only.
- AHII B-17G are rated for 2500rpm/47" power settings for unlimited use.
do you now accept that in AH the B-17G has unlimited use of power settings which were resticted to 5mins IRL?
I've never said otherwise. The B-17G has unlimited use of military power settings which were restricted to 5 minutes in real life, just like every other airplane in this game.
Continuous Military power settings which are unlimited in AH were restricted IRL to 1 hour, but considering the length of sorties and fuel loads this is much less of an issue.
I've never said otherwise. The B-17G has unlimited use of military power settings which were restricted to 5 minutes in real life, just like every other airplane in this game. The issue as previously stated before was that heavy bombers in-game were able to somehow coax some level of performance from their engines that their opposing fighter/interceptors could not.
Bombers in AH run at full WEP
Bombers in AH run at full WEP, whereas the P-51D is limited to 5 minutes of this category of power. The Spit, the F4u, the .... wait... EVERY fighter in this game that even has a WEP setting is limited in its use.
Krusty, I must need to reinstall my client, because the B-17G in my copy of Aces High 2 will only pull 47" of manifold pressure, which is military power for the B-17G. Must be nice to have your version where the B-17G will pull 54".
109's have wep that runs forever.What do 17's run up against in FSO's? I'll give ya a hint. They run forever on wep and re generate it too.
109's regen better than most planes.