Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Paladin3 on June 30, 2013, 05:30:50 AM
-
I am curious, what airspeed did various WWII bombers drop their loads? I can not imagine that it was full throttle - station keeping itself would be impossible among other things. Does anyone know? I ask as I know there are a lot of folks around here that are well versed in history and such from those airframes and the time frame itself.
Thank you.
-
IIRC, B-17s flew 155mph IAS and B-24s at 165mph IAS when in formations. (155mph indicated should be something like 230mph TAS at 24k)
But let's wait for someone with a proper source :old:
-
I am curious, what airspeed did various WWII bombers drop their loads? I can not imagine that it was full throttle - station keeping itself would be impossible among other things. Does anyone know? I ask as I know there are a lot of folks around here that are well versed in history and such from those airframes and the time frame itself.
Thank you.
:airplane: normal cruise speed for the B-17G was 185MPH, IAS and because lf keeping formations together, this was the speed most used for bombing missions. Some exceptions to this was the Oil raid by B-24's, which because of distance of round trip, used maximum criuse settings and even then, only a handful of bombers returned to home base.
The B-29's over Japan, as long as they were above 25K, had plenty of fuel for round trip to Tinian, but when Lamay dropped their altitudes to 5 thousand and fire bombing Japan cities, some had to make emergency landings on Ok.
I have found that flying with most of these guys in the game with no formal formation flying training, its a lot easier for the formation to stay together At the slower speeds.
-
I thought bombers flew at 300mph like in aces high :old:
-
Bombing speeds varied based on the type of bomber, altitude of bombing, what kind of bombing mission, threat of interception, and the lead bomber's whim. Also, remember that the faster the bomber the more variables present to throw off the accuracy regardless of how good the bomb sight, navigator, or bombardier.
One thing for certain in the real deal, the odds of a B24, B17, Ju88, B26, etc, etc, dropping bombs are max throttle are slim and more so none. On the same token the only few fighters that flew around on maximum throttle were the scrambled interceptors and those engaged in combat. Also, while I dont have the information at hand I'd be willing to bet the B25's, Bostons, and other smaller and faster level bombers dropped at a higher speed than the heavy bombers due to the obvious (higher chance of interception, less variables in accuracy, etc).
For HTC to restrict one category it would be difficult to not have ramifications elsewhere. Though, I think it would be not be out of the question for bombers to have a maximum allowable speed to drop ordnance for each individual bomber. For instance, HTC cant really put a max of 240 TAS on level bombers because the B29 would need some very minute mico managing to keep it in the air that slow at high altitudes, I doubt the auto pilot could keep it level. However, the B24, B17, and Lancasters could certainly abide by that 240 TAS restriction because that was their norm. Likewise, the Mossi B Mk XVI probably dropped ordnance at a bit higher speeds than 240 TAS simply because speed was it's forte', speed was its only defense and I doubt it went in to enemy airspace strolling along like it was a walk in the park.
Ultimately the easiest thing for HTC to do would be to have a more dynamic bomb spread based on the speed of the bomber, AND have the altitude factor in as well. A B24 moving along at 200 TAS should in theory be able to get a more accurate drop than a B24 moving along at 290 TAS. If there is a slider of sorts for accuracy, I'm not currently seeing much difference between dropping at high speeds vs low speeds and high vs low altitude.
-
A B24 moving along at 200 TAS should in theory be able to get a more accurate drop than a B24 moving along at 290 TAS. If there is a slider of sorts for accuracy, I'm not currently seeing much difference between dropping at high speeds vs low speeds and high vs low altitude.
Well, in AH it takes longer for speeds to stabilize when trying to drop at max speed, which means that you have to have a longer run into the target. This isn't much of an issue for the draggy B-17, B-24 and Lancaster as they seem to stabilize pretty rapidly, but the Ar234, B-29 and Mosquito Mk XVI take multiple sectors to do so.
-
My only issue with bomber speeds is how a formation manages to stay intact when the lead plane has his throttles firewalled. In reality, it would be nearly impossible for the trailing aircraft to keep up. Formations should be limited to 90% military power or start pulling away from the drones.
-
My only issue with bomber speeds is how a formation manages to stay intact when the lead plane has his throttles firewalled. In reality, it would be nearly impossible for the trailing aircraft to keep up. Formations should be limited to 90% military power or start pulling away from the drones.
It's been my experience that all at 100% does not equal a tight group. For this reason when leading bombers in events I won't say my cruise settings. I'm never at 100 %. If I tell the group my settings and they copy them their different connections to the Internet come into play and the formation gets strung out. I always go slower and just tell them to form on me.
-
My only issue with bomber speeds is how a formation manages to stay intact when the lead plane has his throttles firewalled. In reality, it would be nearly impossible for the trailing aircraft to keep up. Formations should be limited to 90% military power or start pulling away from the drones.
I agree bomber formations shouldn't be able to run at 100% power and keep their drones, especially when maneuvering. I've thought for some time this should be a wishlist item.
For the sake of newbs though, could it be programmed that 100% throttle only applies 85 or 90% power when you have drones?
-
I agree bomber formations shouldn't be able to run at 100% power and keep their drones, especially when maneuvering. I've thought for some time this should be a wishlist item.
For the sake of newbs though, could it be programmed that 100% throttle only applies 85 or 90% power when you have drones?
Perhaps something very similar to the stall limiter that you could shut off if you liked. Of perhaps just limit drones to 90% speed and leave the formations exactly as they are. Noobs will learn real quick.
-
It's obvious that drones have around 110% of the power of the manned planes in order to stay in formation.
I'm cool with that but I don't like seeing drones with a stopped engine keeping up with the manned formation leader.
-
It's obvious that drones have around 110% of the power of the manned planes in order to stay in formation.
I'm cool with that but I don't like seeing drones with a stopped engine keeping up with the manned formation leader.
I've seen them drop off pace, even pop when they've lost more than 1.
-
People complain from time to time about bombers tooling around at 100% throttle. They site the typical speeds of bombers in WWII. However, fighters in WWII didn't tool around at 100% throttle, either, and I don't hear (in comparison) many people complaining about that.
Throttle setting isn't unrealistic -- it's just that some circumstances that cause throttle reduction are less common in the Main Arena (as they should be, because people there don't want to be flying 1 hour to combat area or flying bombers only when there are 50 other bomber formations ready to go). If WWII had circumstances like the Main Arena (closeness to combat, no worries about aircraft, engine, or fuel supply, etc.), there likely would have been a lot more aircraft flying around at 100% throttle.
Other things that were not as common in WWII: using flaps in a fight, flying around solo, stallfights at sea level, excellent weather, in-cockpit GPS. Those things are even more of a departure from typical WWII combats than are bombers at 100% throttle. Also, these aspects are not unrealistic on their own, either -- they, too, are a result of the circumstances of combat in the MA, which appropriately should have aspects set as they are.
In scenarios, bombers often do not fly around at 100% throttle because it's hard to keep your bomb group formed up at 100% throttle (i.e., for one of the reasons in real life that bomber formations didn't tool around at 100% throttle). In scenarios, sometimes fighter planes don't tool around at 100% throttle because there are times where they need to conserve fuel (again, one of the reasons in real life it wasn't done).
If you want more realism, please join us in scenarios.
-
It's always been my understanding that the flight modeling in this game is based off what the aircraft or vehicle could do, not what it often did do in the war
-
People complain from time to time about bombers tooling around at 100% throttle. They site the typical speeds of bombers in WWII. However, fighters in WWII didn't tool around at 100% throttle, either, and I don't hear (in comparison) many people complaining about that.
In combat fighters did "tool around" at 100% MIL, or even WEP. American, British, German, Japanese and Italian bombers maintained cruise settings (other than oddballs like the Mossie bombers) even while under fighter attack. It is misleading to paint them as equivalent like you did here.
That said, bomber formations would need to be much larger to justify their use if they were forced to use cruise settings.
-
In combat fighters did "tool around" at 100% MIL, or even WEP. American, British, German, Japanese and Italian bombers maintained cruise settings (other than oddballs like the Mossie bombers) even while under fighter attack. It is misleading to paint them as equivalent like you did here.
"In combat" is only a very small percentage of flying around. WWII fighters often were at cruise-like settings and, only upon seeing the enemy, would go to full power. That is very different from fighters in the MA that are at 100% power long before combat.
I don't think that anything I posted was at all misleading. Especially that use of flaps, stallfights on the deck, weather, and GPS are all much farther from typical than is a bomber flying at full throttle instead of cruise.
-
"In combat" is only a very small percentage of flying around. WWII fighters often were at cruise-like settings and, only upon seeing the enemy, would go to full power. That is very different from fighters in the MA that are at 100% power long before combat.
It isn't a small percentage of the flight time in AH. It also wasn't a small percentage for a lot of defensive sorties for Spitfires and Hurricanes and later Bf109s and Fw190s. That persistently stated fact is misleading because it makes it sound equivalent when it is not. Fighters used cruise out of combat and MIL/WEP in combat. Bombers used MIL for takeoff, a climb setting for climbing out and then cruise for the entire sortie. Except the Russians. They just used MIL.
-
It isn't a small percentage of the flight time in AH.
Yes, that's part of my point. There are big differences between WWII and MA in some aspects of how planes are used because there are big differences in circumstances. Being in combat or not is only one circumstance, and one that doesn't matter as much to bomber power settings. What matters more in bombers is whether or not you need to create and maintain a large, tight formation; and what matters in both is whether or not you need to conserve fuel (which you don't in MA but usually did need to do in WWII).
It also wasn't a small percentage for a lot of defensive sorties for Spitfires and Hurricanes and later Bf109s and Fw190s.
I think it was a small percentage overall. Of any statistical distribution, you can find one end of it or the other, but we're talking about what is typical or average. Out of 100% of flying time in WWII fighter sorties, I'd be willing to bet that more than 80% or more of it was not at full power. Spitfire scrambles during Battle of Britain or LW scrambles for late-war bombing does not take into account sorties of Spits to the Continent, 109's and 190's on combat patrols, American planes on bomber escort, allied planes on combat patrols, naval operations, etc. that made up probably a large majority of total flight time.
MA lets us fly realistically modeled planes in an environment geared toward quicker action (which is not how it usually was but which is necessary for the arena to be enjoyable). That means lots of things are done here that were not typical for WWII -- not just typical bomber power setting, not just typical fighter power setting, but typical use of flaps, typical style of fights, typical altitude of fights, typical ease of navigation, typical weather, etc.
-
Ok, fine. You win. Fighters never used MIL or WEP. They flew and fought at cruise settings, completely the same as bombers.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Ok, fine. You win. Fighters never used MIL or WEP. They flew and fought at cruise settings, completely the same as bombers.
Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say.
But no, I can't accept. You are being too gracious. I must insist that you win. Fighters always used MIL or WEP at all times. They flew from takeoff to landing at full throttle, even on escort missions and air patrols, completely the same as bombers in the MA. ;)
-
My point was not if they (bombers) could or could not fly around at Mil or WEP, it's about the impossibility of maintaining a formation at 100% power. The rear planes are constantly making corrections and bleeding speed while they do to stay with the leader. If the leader is 100%, eventually he will pull away from the rest of the group.
-
But the followers can have slightly less drag (like geese in a flying V). . . . ;)
-
But the followers can have slightly less drag (like geese in a flying V). . . . ;)
LOL! Knew that was coming. Geese don't generate as much wake turbulence or prop wash as a B-17.
-
I use reduced power settings whenever I fly the La-7. It's biggest weakness is lack of fuel on full power (to say nothing of WEP), but its biggest secret is that it floats like a glider when you dial it back. You can get clear across the map on reduced settings. Typically I set up a gentle climbout on reduced power to optimum cruise altitude, cruise to where I'm going, go to full power to climb to combat altitude, have the fight, and then I have enough fuel to go home on full power, just in case someone wants to chase me. That's assuming I don't get shot down first.
So if you want to see people doing more realistic fuel/throttle management, you either have to make the missions longer, or increase the burn rate so that more planes are in the La-7s shoes, with marginal reserves for typical missions. Even so planes like the 51 with its huge range will just carry more fuel and fly full throttle.
And BTW - even if you just keep the throttle open all the time, if you just autoclimb from the runway to altitude you're wasting both fuel and time. You'll get there faster with a bigger reserve if you climb gently to the altitude where you get the best tradeoff between TAS and climb-time, cruise at that height till you're where you want to be and do your final climb there, when you're lighter. Otherwise you're just burning fuel to lift fuel, and wasting time doing it.
-
Bombers used MIL for takeoff, a climb setting for climbing out and then cruise for the entire sortie.
That is how Lead flew. The guys in back are anywhere from idle to Takeoff Power trying to stay in formation. The station keepers always use more power, burn more fuel.
-
Drano - it isn't he internet lag. We fly and I tell wingmen all the time what manifold I am pulling. It is the fact that people do not realize that they cannot set that manifold until they look out their cockpit and realize they have matched speed first. It is handy to know what power settings someone is pulling after that. I have no idea why folks find it so hard to realize that if they are lagging behind that they need to add power :O
-
I have no idea why folks find it so hard to realize that if they are lagging behind that they need to add power :O
Yeah me either. Seems easy enough on my end when I'm just keeping formation. I try to make it easy on others when leading by flying at reduced power to the point where I don't see anyone lagging too far behind. It's as much the leader's reponsibility to notice this happening as it is the follower's. I slowed down, so you speed up. Just do what you have to do to keep station. If the leader is walking away from the group and they're all at 100% somebody needs to let him know that's happening before your group is strung out beyond icon range (which ain't much by design in events).