Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Chalenge on March 05, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
-
You might want to rethink your assessment of how frequent rocket attacks on Japan occurred. According to the 506th FGs website the number of attacks was quite frequent in the months of July and August with rockets even though less than 25% of the Commands P-51s were able to carry them (the burden falling upon the 506th).
They also frequently carried 500lb bombs on sorties into Japan. The majority of the missions flown into Japan (according to the 506th) were Fighter Strikes (not escort) and by your own logic if that is true (and it comes from the horses mouth as it were) then the Mustangs most certainly had the larger drop tanks.
http://506thfightergroup.org
-
exactly how long are you planning to stay up in the air? I've seen lately (past month or so) guys flying around with extra tanks under the wings trying to pick and failing miserably. just curious about why the long missions (1 hour or more).
semp
-
Its not a question of how long but how far you can fly. With larger tanks (which were historically used and available in large numbers) P38s and P51 both could fly NOE great distances as well as escort bombers even further.
If we ever do get B29s I would like to escort them as long as possible and by that I mean longer than it is possible to escort anything right now.
-
Its not a question of how long but how far you can fly. With larger tanks (which were historically used and available in large numbers) P38s and P51 both could fly NOE great distances
I really doubt anyone is doing NOE's that require a longer flightime (at full MIL) than the 64 mins the P-38 currently has at sealevel. That's about 12 sectors anyway. ;)
-
If you have to return that also limits you to six to and six back and thats assuming you dont spend any time engaged or otherwise loitering over the target knocking guns down or whatever. Guys like you that often bust up these missions by killing the goon(s) should know better than to say things like that. :aok
-
If you have to return that also limits you to six to and six back and thats assuming you dont spend any time engaged or otherwise loitering over the target knocking guns down or whatever. Guys like you that often bust up these missions by killing the goon(s) should know better than to say things like that. :aok
1. Noe mission members rarely return at all, no matter how far or close the base is. They win... or die.
2. The 12 sectors (6 for each leg) were calculated for full mil. If the mission uses economy settings, you still have a lot of fuel left for fighting... even if you want to make it back.
3. On small maps, a NOE can go everywhere. On large maps, this is also true for the most part, there are rarely any viable targets beyond that distances, particularly when you plane to "get back".
Also I don't believe it is absolutely mandatory to be able to reach any and all locations on a large map all the times by noe's.
4. On your last comment: :rolleyes:
Overall it seems you are trying to solve problems (12 sector NOE, B29 escort) that aren't there.
-
I would like to see them for the P-38. The 165 gallon ones for it would be nice. The Mustang...well why not. I'm not going to fly that far in it, but maybe someone else might want to. :aok
-
It was far more common for the P-38 to use the 165 gallon drop tanks than the 330 gallon drop tanks. P-38 pilots hated to use the 330 gallon drop tanks because the tanks needed special bracers that would end up doing more damage to the plane than what they were supposed to prevent. In addition, they couldn't pickle the 330 gallon drop tanks without running the risk of damaging their plane.
ack-ack
-
You might want to rethink your assessment of how frequent rocket attacks on Japan occurred. According to the 506th FGs website the number of attacks was quite frequent in the months of July and August with rockets even though less than 25% of the Commands P-51s were able to carry them (the burden falling upon the 506th).
They also frequently carried 500lb bombs on sorties into Japan. The majority of the missions flown into Japan (according to the 506th) were Fighter Strikes (not escort) and by your own logic if that is true (and it comes from the horses mouth as it were) then the Mustangs most certainly had the larger drop tanks.
http://506thfightergroup.org
So the last two months of the war, one group, the 506th carried rockets, which as you say was less then 25% of the command. That was the 15th, 21st and 506th.
How do I need to rethink things when the use was so minimal on the Mustang in the course of the war? I never said it didn't happen, just that it happened rarely, and you proved my point. As for the bombs. They didn't take them to Japan, but on short range stuff.
The issue still is those DTs for you I know. That's not up to me. No one said they didn't carry them, just that it was rare, and again you prove the point.
You see those Mustang profiles on the site? I did those long time ago for the 506th guys. You want to talk 506th I can go for a long time :)
Since you point to that site, you should read more.
Operational Difficulties in Connection with Ordnance Functional
The major difficulty occurred when the only available .50 cal. Ammunition proved to be defective and had to be classed Grade 3. The lack of missions and the location of a surplus in an Anti-Aircraft battery, prevented us from being completely out. Another situation in supply held up the rocket firing. Because of the small number of 5.0” HVAR and 5.0” AR reaching this island, we were unable to train and fire rockets to any great affect. The lack of Rocket Launcher Kits also restricted our number of rocket carrying aircraft to no more than six (6) at any time.
Difficulties Encountered by Armament on VLR Operations
The principal difficulty encountered by the Armament Sections was the K14A Gun Sight. The sight, being a delicate gyroscopic instrument, could easily become inoperative between the base and the target, or over the target, without any prior warning. This necessitated use of the fixed portion of the sight which is equipped with a 70 mil reticle and this was particularly bad due to the fact that all our pilots had been trained to fight on a 100 mil reticle. A very definite supply problem was also encountered with the sight in our first two months of operation. No replacement parts of new sights were available, and no facilities for the repair of this sight were at hand. A limited number of K-14 sight installation kits were available and were tried with unsuccessful results. Another problem which fell to the Armament Sections was "wing tank trouble". This means simply that when the planes reached the point of release for the tanks, some of them almost invariably failed to drop. This put the pilot at a disadvantage in several ways such as the possibility of ground fire hitting the tank, reducing speed of the plane somewhat, as well as increasing consumption of gasoline which was all important. This problem was finally licked by cleaning the bomb shackles prior to such VLR, using metal sway braces which could not bind on the tanks, or if wooden sway braced were used, exercising extreme care to make certain the tanks were properly adjusted and aligned.
Pilots, too, were instructed on the best methods of release to be employed where possible such as diving and then pull out sharply while firing a burst from machine guns, or slowly up and lowering the flaps and landing gear, etc.
Wanna give up your K-14 and include 'wing tank trouble' in the name of realism too? :)
-
Thanks Guppy.
First question that popped into my head was: How did the carry bombs to Japan if they needed drop tanks to get there. :D
I'd like to see the 110 Gallon belly tank for the P-47. Just for aesthetic reasons.
wrongway
-
Does the Mossie need the long range tank that could go in the bomb bay?
I mean, I could use it, I guess. I did do one sortie on the old Mindanao map back when trains were first added that used all of the Mossie's range, to the point where I shut down one engine to save fuel at the end.
I really don't think it has much practical use in AH though.
-
I did read it Guppy and I know if this group had these types of missions more often than they did escort then so did the other groups. The point that this was the last two months of the war means nothing. They did in fact fly them and in numbers which is something you tried to gloss over before as if it never happened or happened maybe once or twice.
I sure hope you dont write history books.
Practical use or not the point is the tanks were available and I suspect that digging a little deeper we would find ten rocket sorties also. Whether the units were able to use the weapons effectively or not doesnt matter (I mean look at the 152 and 262) the point is they did use them. The 506th reported honestly on their use and effectiveness and Im betting you learned quite a bit from that website that you will ignore.
Karnak I can think of a lot of ways to use drop tanks effectively that you obviously have not considered.
-
I sure hope you dont write history books.
I bet he writes a lot better than you code online flight sims.
-
... while firing a burst from machine guns ...
how would that help release droppies? :headscratch:
-
heavy vibrations right over the pylon?
-
ok that might work
-
Just climb to 50K and you can save even MORE fuel!!! :aok What this amounts to I suspect is he wants to fly noe to the scorpion farms on the other side of the map and back to milk up some points.
Does Metavoss actually think people are going to fly 4,6,or 8 hr missions? :rolleyes:
A guy named Jerry Clower once said, "some folks are educated beyond their intelligence". Why not ask for HTC to change the fuel burn by 1.0 and be done with it? Instead of asking for changes in design, graphics and flight modeling......Enstein :headscratch:
-
I did read it Guppy and I know if this group had these types of missions more often than they did escort then so did the other groups. The point that this was the last two months of the war means nothing. They did in fact fly them and in numbers which is something you tried to gloss over before as if it never happened or happened maybe once or twice.
I sure hope you dont write history books.
You see those Mustang profiles on the site? I did those long time ago for the 506th guys. You want to talk 506th I can go for a long time :)
Practical use or not the point is the tanks were available and I suspect that digging a little deeper we would find ten rocket sorties also. Whether the units were able to use the weapons effectively or not doesnt matter (I mean look at the 152 and 262) the point is they did use them. The 506th reported honestly on their use and effectiveness and Im betting you learned quite a bit from that website that you will ignore.
Karnak I can think of a lot of ways to use drop tanks effectively that you obviously have not considered.
They were available. Point is they were used so rarely as to be inconsequential.
wrongway
-
Karnak I can think of a lot of ways to use drop tanks effectively that you obviously have not considered.
No you can't. You can think of gamey things that you would like to exploit.
To clarify, you have not come up with a single rational reason to spend dev time on bigger drop tanks for your precious Pony in any of the threads you have posted.
-
I did read it Guppy and I know if this group had these types of missions more often than they did escort then so did the other groups. The point that this was the last two months of the war means nothing. They did in fact fly them and in numbers which is something you tried to gloss over before as if it never happened or happened maybe once or twice.
I sure hope you dont write history books.
Practical use or not the point is the tanks were available and I suspect that digging a little deeper we would find ten rocket sorties also. Whether the units were able to use the weapons effectively or not doesnt matter (I mean look at the 152 and 262) the point is they did use them. The 506th reported honestly on their use and effectiveness and Im betting you learned quite a bit from that website that you will ignore.
Karnak I can think of a lot of ways to use drop tanks effectively that you obviously have not considered.
As I told you before, the decision on DTs isn't mine to make. I don't think they are needed as they were used so little. As for the 10 rocket sorties. Please find them. We already know they didn't do it with the Iwo birds, and only one group had rockets and they didn't have enough for training and effective use. I can't find any in Korea. but you feel free to keep digging. I didn't know we were in a I win or you win situation. Please enlighten the rest of us with your research
-
I'd like to see our P-51D rockets reduced, personally. The evidence just isn't there to support 10x loads.
how would that help release droppies? :headscratch:
Maybe the force of the shells ejecting left and right of the pylon "pinged" into the tank giving it a push off the pylon?
EDIT: Or the exhaust gasses venting below the wing helped "blow" the tank off?
But I think Bat's answer of "vibrations" is also a good one.
-
interesting about the 10 rkt pony loadout, if it stays maybe we should have the 12 rkt option for the Typhie :devil
-
I would really like the bigger drop tanks, I've read stories of the P-38 jocks with the 5000 gallon DTs staying in the air days to weeks when at correct fuel saving altitudes (generally 30k+).
-
EDIT: Never mind, mensa was being sarcastic, my bad.
-
EDIT: Never mind, mensa was being sarcastic, my bad.
LOL ya think. :D
-
It was nothing, I was making my own sarcastic comments about not having a bathroom for "days to a week" but I realized double sarcasm just didn't fid, so I edited my post :aok