Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: RTHolmes on May 20, 2009, 01:00:35 PM

Title: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: RTHolmes on May 20, 2009, 01:00:35 PM
Well it keeps on coming up so its maybe time to have a look at the power settings for heavy bombers.

A couple of comments first.
I have no beef with any of the bombers, or the guys who like to fly them. I'm not trying to make it  easier/harder to kill or survive in buffs. I believe that most AH players have an interest in WWII  aircraft which extends to the tactics used to deploy them, and would like to recreate in our cartoon  AH world the kind of realistic encounters which we've all read from pilot reports, seen in movies and  imagined ourselves. I also believe that the more realistic the modelling, the more useful real-life  tactics become. In short, the more realistic the model, the more realistic the encounters. :)

AH power settings model
Pretty simple (but effective) - we have a range of RPM/MP settings which can be used continuously  known as Military Power. In addition for some aircraft, we have a limited-duration  higher-power setting known as WEP. We also have settings for Normal Power and Max  Cruise, although these are suggestions rather than limits.

There is an obvious limitation with this model - there is only one option for a limited-duration  power setting, in contrast with real aircraft engines which may have several different power/duration  options. Most of the Allied aircraft I've looked at have a 5 min Takeoff/Emergency limit and a lower  1 hour Climb limit. Since the vast majority of sorties flown in AH will be under 1 hour duration, it  seems reasonable to make our WEP the 5 min limit and leave the 1 hour limit as Military  Power. Other aircraft are not so obvious - eg. the JU-88 had a 1 min setting for Takeoff, and a  30 min limit for Climb.

What I would like to see revised is the situation where an aircraft in AH can fly for an hour using settings which were only available for 5 mins in real life.

Lancaster IIIRPM MP limit RPM MP  limit
Pilot Notes (Merlin 28/38)
Takeoff & Combat300014-16lb5 min
Max Climb28509lb1 hour
Max Cont Rich26507lb-
Max Cont Lean26504lb-
AHII (with suggested changes)
WEP---300014lb5 min
Military28509lb-28509lb-
Normal26504lb-26504lb-
Max  Cruise23002lb-23002lb-

Comments
Military matches Max Climb, which is good, however the Lanc should get WEP settings as above.


B-24JRPM MP limit RPM MP  limit
Pilot Notes (R-1830-43)
Takeoff & Military270048.5"5 min
Normal Power255046"1 hour
Max Cruise Rich232535.5"-
Max Cruise Lean220032"-
AHII (with suggested changes)
WEP---270048.5"5 min
Military270048.5"-255046"-
Normal255046"-232535.5"-
Max  Cruise232535.5"-220032"-

Comments
All wrong here, B-24J needs completely revised settings, as above.


I realise this could get out of hand very quickly, so lets just keep the discussion to these 2 buffs to start with.

*ducks*
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Stoney on May 20, 2009, 04:13:13 PM
The B-24's  "Normal" setting was not limited to 1 hour in real life.  It was labled as "continuous operation" on the engine chart, meaning you could operate the engine at that setting until you ran out of gas 4 hours later, for example.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: RTHolmes on May 20, 2009, 04:39:39 PM
the spitfire's WEP, for example, was not limited to 5 mins in real life either. there are numerous examples of it being used for considerably longer than 5 mins (40mins in one example without any engine damage iirc). The figures I have used all come from official documents, and are the safe, tested and certified limits "by the book."

The B-24 chart clearly states a 1 hour limit for "Normal Power" at 2550/46". This from the now declassified Consolidated B24 Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions, USAAF and Consolidated Aircraft, 1942. I you have a better source, I'll be happy to reconsider.

In AH, however, its reasonable to use the 1 hour limited setting for Military Power. For the B24 this hasnt been done, our Military Power is actually the 5 min limited power setting, which I'm suggesting should be our WEP setting for the B24.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Stoney on May 20, 2009, 04:53:16 PM
The only operating limitation I see on the continuous operation setting is for limiting cylinder head temperatures of 260 degrees celsius to one hour.  232 degrees is the limitation for "maximum continuous".  It does not say that the rpm/manifold pressure setting itself is limited.

Perhaps you can scan and post your resource.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: RTHolmes on May 20, 2009, 05:18:37 PM
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hu1F9PTWG28C&pg=PA122&dq=liberator+pilot+notes&lr=#PPA126,M1 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hu1F9PTWG28C&pg=PA122&dq=liberator+pilot+notes&lr=#PPA126,M1)

I dont have a problem with the 1 hour setting being unlimited in AH, I do have a problem with the 5 min setting being unlimited though. :)
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Stoney on May 20, 2009, 07:19:13 PM
Quote from: RTHolmes on May 20, 2009, 05:18:37 PM
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hu1F9PTWG28C&pg=PA122&dq=liberator+pilot+notes&lr=#PPA126,M1 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hu1F9PTWG28C&pg=PA122&dq=liberator+pilot+notes&lr=#PPA126,M1)

I dont have a problem with the 1 hour setting being unlimited in AH, I do have a problem with the 5 min setting being unlimited though. :)

p. 47 of the same document doesn't show the maximum continuous, 1 hour limitation, oddly.

Ok, so what happens when there are planes that have a 5 minute limitation for WEP and a 5 minute limitation for Military Power?
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: RTHolmes on May 21, 2009, 07:56:03 AM
Interestingly the manual states that under normal conditions, climb should be at 75% of normal rated power (about 750hp at 2230/34" p.46). The shorter distances in AH and hence the need to climb as fast as possible justify using 100% (about 1000hp at 2550/46"). Contrast this with our current Military setting (1200hp at 2700/48.5").

Even with my suggested revised settings, our B-24s will be climbing at 33% more power than was commonly used in WWII. And thats just for climbing, the manual suggests a max of 735hp for level flight. My revised settings will give 1000hp, we currently have 1200hp - almost double the power commonly used for level flight. Hence the totally unrealistic speeds attained in AH and the consequent issues with closure rate etc. Although my revised settings look like a massive porking of the B-24, they only go a small way to correcting the performance.

For aircraft where there are multiple limited power settings we have to make a reasonable compromise taking into account the limitation of the AH WEP model mentioned in the OP. For your example, 5 mins at the higher setting might be reasonable for our WEP setting. For the JU-88 mentioned above I would discard the 1 min setting (our runways are long enough for fully laden takeoff not to be a problem) and have the 30 min setting as our WEP setting. I suspect this approach would be very helpful for BoB events in the absence of He-111s and Do-17s, but we'll leave the 88s for later ... :)
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: RTHolmes on May 21, 2009, 09:34:10 AM
Just to give an idea of how this effects level speed, tested @20k airstart, 50%, 20x100lb.

USAAF SettingRPMMPTAS @20k
Takeoff/Military270048.5"298current AH max continuous
Normal Rated255046"290revised AH max continuous
Max Cruise Rich232535.5"255max used IRL for level flight
Max Cruise Lean220032"218typical IRL for level flight

at 20k real B-24s would typically have been making 220-250mph on their bomb run, in AH we do the same at closer to 290mph. Thats a huge difference. my suggested settings would only drop this to 280ish, but a step in the right direction.

Consider a 190-A8, at 20k about 380mph. RL level closure rate about 145mph, current AH closure rate about 80mph, revised 90mph. Thats a big difference. And this at the 190's best alt, the effect of the excess power settings gets worse the higher you go.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Stoney on May 21, 2009, 10:58:01 AM
Quote from: RTHolmes on May 21, 2009, 09:34:10 AM
Consider a 190-A8, at 20k about 380mph. RL level closure rate about 145mph, current AH closure rate about 80mph, revised 90mph. Thats a big difference. And this at the 190's best alt, the effect of the excess power settings gets worse the higher you go.

But the 190 wouldn't be able to run flat out either, since you'd nerf its power settings the same way you'd nerf the bomber settings, right?
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Karnak on May 21, 2009, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: Stoney on May 21, 2009, 10:58:01 AM
But the 190 wouldn't be able to run flat out either, since you'd nerf its power settings the same way you'd nerf the bomber settings, right?
Fighters ran at full power settings a lot more than bombers did.  At least that seems to be the case from all the first hand accounts I have read.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Stoney on May 21, 2009, 03:15:28 PM
Quote from: Karnak on May 21, 2009, 01:39:13 PM
Fighters ran at full power settings a lot more than bombers did.  At least that seems to be the case from all the first hand accounts I have read.

Well, why?  Same engines.  Same placarded power limitations.  If a P-47 had a military power limit of 5 minutes, but in combat they ran it at that setting for 30 minutes, what do we do in-game to accomodate the discrepancy?  Either fighters get treated the same as the bombers or vice versa.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: RTHolmes on May 21, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
agreed, thats what I'm getting at - fighters and bombers should get to play by the same rules. A quick glance at the R-2800 charts shows that, as for the B-24, the P-47 in AH gets unlimited use of power settings which IRL were limited to 5 mins maximum.

From this quick snapshot of the specs, it seems that RAF aircraft are limited to the certified numbers (and even denied certified WEP settings in the case of the Lanc) whereas US aircraft get to use whatever maximum settings were anecdotally used. Perhaps someone with some knowledge of Luftwaffe specs could comment on their modelling in AH. It seems that the "Hollywood" version of WWII extends as far as AH. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Krusty on May 22, 2009, 07:27:45 PM
Currently fighters play a lot better at the rules than bombers.

Stoney keeps calling this one up, and it's apples and oranges.

Fighters were designed with speed, manuverability, and yes later they were designed expressly to shoot down heavy bombers.

Bombers were not designed for speed, or manuverability. They had 2 aspects: range and bombload. Across all other level bombers these are the 2 most important aspects that keep popping up.

190A8s, for example, are currently limited to what the placards state. No, fighters and bombers did not have the same engines, when you take into account the entire engine system (fuel, cooling, coolant, prop, running speeds). Bombers have 2x the horsepower in level flight they ever could.

So let's not bring the fighters into the equation. You don't need to. Just look at the bombers. They're off. They need fixing. Question is how and where. This is a step in the right direction, even if only limiting speeds a small percentage. What we need is to have MAP/RPM limitations tied into the AoA. So that on climb they are limited as RTholmes described.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this CAN be modeled in AH, right? I seem to recall at least one other plane has the RPM or MAP drop during climb, but as soon as you level it goes back to normal (having to do with limited air into the engine at higher AoA).
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Clone155 on May 23, 2009, 12:49:18 AM
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW! I just got a really good idea!!! (bear with me on this one..)

You know how in the MAs the fuel is set low right? for example... the typhoon gets about 23 minutes of fuel with 100% going military power, now what if CHANGED IT so that 23 minutes of fuel is NORMAL POWER? I think this would force people to fly normal power like they do now with military power, and military power would be like WEP. Well that was my big Idea, what do you think?
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Messiah on May 23, 2009, 03:25:33 AM
Quote from: Clone155 on May 23, 2009, 12:49:18 AM
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW! I just got a really good idea!!! (bear with me on this one..)

You know how in the MAs the fuel is set low right? for example... the typhoon gets about 23 minutes of fuel with 100% going military power, now what if CHANGED IT so that 23 minutes of fuel is NORMAL POWER? I think this would force people to fly normal power like they do now with military power, and military power would be like WEP. Well that was my big Idea, what do you think?

Terrible.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Delirium on May 23, 2009, 03:56:56 AM
I'd like the fuel burn even higher, as it is short legged high performers don't really have to worry about range.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Chalenge on May 23, 2009, 01:19:10 PM
Quote from: RTHolmes on May 20, 2009, 01:00:35 PM
A couple of comments first.
I have no beef with any of the bombers, or the guys who like to fly them. I'm not trying to make it  easier/harder to kill or survive in buffs.

I call BS.

Just like score the game is setup the way it is for action/reward and you are obviously trying to make the reward (from killing bombers) easier to get.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: RTHolmes on May 24, 2009, 06:54:55 AM
prove it. :P

I dont have major problems killing buffs, I wont however bother if they are 17s or 24s at 25k+ because the incorrectly modelled power settings mean that they have an unrealistic advantage in terms of speed and climbrate over fighters which are correctly modelled. If bombers in WWII were almost untouchable by fighters at 25-30k, its news to me.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Stoney on May 24, 2009, 10:18:19 AM
Quote from: RTHolmes on May 24, 2009, 06:54:55 AM
...incorrectly modelled power settings mean that they have an unrealistic advantage in terms of speed and climbrate over fighters which are correctly modelled....

You know, I wonder why, given this is so brazenly apparent, that HTC has chosen to let this situation continue?  You would think that a company that is dedicated to creating and sustaining the highest-quality WWII air combat game would not be so negligent as to allow bombers to do things in the game that they couldn't have done in real life.

I find myself truly flummoxed...
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Angus on May 24, 2009, 12:24:54 PM
In RL you "could" run at panic boost for much more time than allowed. It might ruin your engine, and it might not. Such as in the case of the Spitfire (V?) running more than 30 minutes through the gate.
To include this in AH, you'd need some extra to the damage model. Would be interesting and should be possible.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Chalenge on May 24, 2009, 02:22:34 PM
Quote from: RTHolmes on May 24, 2009, 06:54:55 AM
prove it. :P

I dont have major problems killing buffs, I wont however bother if they are 17s or 24s at 25k+ because the incorrectly modelled power settings mean that they have an unrealistic advantage in terms of speed and climbrate over fighters which are correctly modelled. If bombers in WWII were almost untouchable by fighters at 25-30k, its news to me.

It just takes patience and if you dont care to use more patience then you dont get the reward of downing the bombers. Despite bombers having so many guns they are really defenseless and if the changes you made were put into use then bombers would never come out of the hangar and the whines would change from 'bombers are too uber' to 'bombers are nerfed' so learn to deal with it and move on.

Its obvious you DO want bombers to be easier to kill. If you ever flew them you would know that climbing is their only real defense.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: RTHolmes on May 24, 2009, 04:30:54 PM
Chalenge when I said i dont have a problem killing buffs I meant that ... I dont have a problem killing buffs. I'm pretty sure theres a way to check my k/d against buffs (its an "IE only" page), so please go ahead and prove it. One reason I do ok against buffs (and why my k/h is so low in fighters) is because I'm patient enough to spend a sector and a half chewing away at one formation from decent approaches rather than just sitting on their low 6 blasting away.

My problem is that the modelling gives high alt more protection to buffs than historically. Put it this way, how many action reports have you read where a buff pilot writes "we saw contacts so evaded by going into a sustained steep climb"? :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Chalenge on May 24, 2009, 07:48:34 PM
Once again its not WWII and get over yourself the proof is in your whine and thanks for going straight to score (k/h) as proof of your whine being a whine about score.

 :aok
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: RTHolmes on May 29, 2009, 10:41:21 AM
Quote from: Stoney on May 24, 2009, 10:18:19 AM
You know, I wonder why, given this is so brazenly apparent, that HTC has chosen to let this situation continue?  You would think that a company that is dedicated to creating and sustaining the highest-quality WWII air combat game would not be so negligent as to allow bombers to do things in the game that they couldn't have done in real life.

I find myself truly flummoxed...

sry I missed this (distracted by Chalenges trolling). lol negligent is a bit strong, overall AH is a pretty massive software project, not created by a EA-style team of 100 but a handful of talented individuals. you wouldnt expect to get everything perfect first time, you have to start with what data you have and make best guesses for the stuff you dont, and like HTC have done, refine the model as you go along. I understand quite a few of the models have had tweaks over the years in light of better data.

however, without a comment from HTC we may never know why the AH model doesnt appear to match the data ...





yes that was a hint!
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: Stoney on May 29, 2009, 05:20:16 PM
Quote from: RTHolmes on May 29, 2009, 10:41:21 AM
sry I missed this (distracted by Chalenges trolling). lol negligent is a bit strong, overall AH is a pretty massive software project, not created by a EA-style team of 100 but a handful of talented individuals. you wouldnt expect to get everything perfect first time, you have to start with what data you have and make best guesses for the stuff you dont, and like HTC have done, refine the model as you go along. I understand quite a few of the models have had tweaks over the years in light of better data.

however, without a comment from HTC we may never know why the AH model doesnt appear to match the data ...





yes that was a hint!

To be truthful, I let my temper get the best of me RTHolmes.  At the time I had my dander up a little, and that post is me being facetious.  I don't know if anyone else caught that, but at the time I thought it was dripping off the post.
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: RTHolmes on May 29, 2009, 06:02:13 PM
hey we all get a little heated at times :)


<S>
Title: Re: Revised Bomber Power Settings
Post by: olds442 on April 28, 2013, 07:24:47 PM
What if fuel cost perks and how much you bring back is how much perks you don't lose for example

25% fuel= Free
50% fuel=1 perk
75% fuel=2 perks
100% fuel= 3 perks
Drop tank= 1.5 perks

this would help people not just use full mil power for climb out.

EDIT: just saw how old this thread was super sorry.