Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: senna on August 09, 2002, 05:30:24 PM
-
What are the chances of getting a V1 perked of course in AH. Since we already have the planes that intercepted them, why not give us a V1 rocket. Or maybe this goes with new revised strategy system for bombers? Perhaps this should be packaged with the Meteor jet. If we get a German bomber with guided missile, will that lead the way for an eventual V1 or V2?
-
that would be sweet perk a bucnh of v1s' to hit a city or airfiled..lololo
Love BiGB
xoxoxo
-
Which planes do we have that intercepted them?
None that I can see.
Maybe the Tempest I guess, but the Spitfire Mk IX, Spitfire Mk XIV and P-51D are not modeled with 150 octane fuel and the Meteor Mk I is not in the game.
-
Im just saying that some people mite like sending V1s off to distant targets. It could be fun, well I know it would be fun. Push a button off it goes, wait 30 min, BOOM! :) 150 octane fuel, um ok (cas I fly allied planes too) but I also have to say stop hijacking my threads for your own agenda of boosting allied planes. The Lufftwaffe are undermodeled and you know it. As for the planes required to attempt interception, we have them all in the planset already.
-
senna,
WTF are you on about? My own agenda of boosting Allied planes? WTF is you're problem? I have never advocated boosting anything.
I am not asking, nor have I ever asked, for Allied aircraft to be "boosted". When "Add the Spit XIV" threads were around I always advocated it being added with 18lbs boost, not 25lbs boost, eg 100 octane not 150 octane fuel. I stand by this.
Because I have the gall to mention that none of the aircraft in AH match the aircraft that were used for V1 busting, a statement which is factual, you conclude that I am asking for 150 octane fuel? Talk about revealing your bias.
I have always advocate only modeling things as accurately as possible. I don't give a damn who built the piece of crap to begin with.
-
As to the LW aircraft being undermodeled, well, there is only one response to that:
:rolleyes:
-
Geeze so quick Karnak, was just about to respond. I have no objections to overboosting anything and the use of higher octane fuels to achieve that. Give the Lufftwaffe their MW/GM1 options and true speeds (non MW50/GM-1) and ALSO model all this based on a chart or data showing the engine temps at these boost levels with high oct fuels. Just because you can boost up with high octain fuels doesnt mean you wont overheat sooner as well. High ocatin fuel doesnt produce anymore HP (not much) than lesser octain fuels. Its energy is released on the piston dome with a larger intake charge, the princapal factor being something known as BMEP. Mathmatcially you get more power but you also get more heat. Similar to MW50 really. Fuel is fuel and usually yields the same power output unless it is a designer fuel. Take 110 octain fuel run it in your car, you dont get much improvement except for better burn cas regular gasoline has alot of crap in it. So if we model fuel types then we need more realistic engine management to cover all of the planes within the plane set.
1 ounce of 96 oct fuel yields same energy (BTUs) as 110 oct fuel is what I'm saying. Under different mechanical conditions, 110 will yield more and along with that heat is also assocciated.
-
I think that trying to model very realistic engine management would be a nightmare for HT since there is alot of data missiong for all of the airplanes in the AH planeset. What about future planes added? It gets really detailed oriented then and in terms of accuracy and all fairness is very difficult I think. IMHO.
:rolleyes:
-
Spitfire Mk XIV with 100 octane has a deck speed of 357mph.
Spitfire Mk XIV with 150 octane has a deck speed of 385mph or so.
It changes stuff dramatically.
However, all that is beside the point. I don't want 150 octane modeled.
I also note that MW50 and GM1 are modeled on serveral German fighters, so I don't understand your complaint there.
V1s would be fine with me, I was just pointing out that the aircraft used to shoot them down are not really modeled.
As it happens the Fw190D-9, Bf109G-10 and Me262 would make fine anti-V1 interceptors, so from a gameplay stand point there isn't a problem with V1s.
-
Wing Commander Roland Beamont CBE, DSO, DFC of 150 Wing shot down over 30 doodlebugs w/ the Tempest (Mk. V) the wing got over 600 - see Aeroplane magazine (http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com)
May 2002
-
But were the Tempest's using 100 octane fuel, or 150 octane fuel?
If they were using 150 octane they had totally different performance than the AH Tempest Mk V.
-
fuel data is not in the article, but certainly the Tempest was faster than the V1
-
Well I think its based on intercepts then overboosting to get a shot. I cant imagine these guys runing on overboost for any length of time like we would in AH at 100 % throttle all the time. Fried engines, fried engines.
-
senna,
All data I have says that the engines could take far, far more than AH allows us to give them.
Sure, it shortened the time between engine overhauls, but it had no affect in the time frame of one sortie.
A P-38 pilot said that once they were in combat they put the throttle all the way into WEP and left it there for the entire fight, sometimes more than 20 minutes. He said they were told not to, but the reason was not to avoid locking the engine it was to increase engine life spans. Engine life spans are of tertiary importance when you are locked in a life and death struggle 20,000ft over Germany.
A Pratt & Whittney R-2800-59 Double Wasp (P-47D engine) was run at WEP for 90 hours straight without any malfunction. At 90 hours they turned it off, it didn't stop due to malfunction.
-
I too would like to see V1's.
For say 50 bomber perks points you select a field within range and fire it off. It stays on course by it self and unless intercepted destroys 80% or more of the town.
Make the launch pads a destoyable object.
F.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Which planes do we have that intercepted them?
None that I can see.
Maybe the Tempest I guess, but the Spitfire Mk IX, Spitfire Mk XIV and P-51D are not modeled with 150 octane fuel and the Meteor Mk I is not in the game.
P-47M was used to intercept them;):D
-
P47M would be a nice V1 interceptor......
But I bet we see more and more "wunderweapons" before we see one of those......:(
-
I'm not going to use any or my 'perkies' on something I 'point and shoot' one time :)
-
For say 50 bomber perks points you select a field within range and fire it off. It stays on course by it self and unless intercepted destroys 80% or more of the town.
I dunno about hitting a city and destroying so much of it. The V1 had a simple gyro system to keep it flying and was very innacurate. Seems you would be lucky to hit the general target area. I also don't know how you would assign a perk value to a blind weapon. To use the v1 as a tactical weapon distorts how they were actually used - as a terror weapon against militarily insignificant targets.
Cool weapons, but don't think they fit in the game.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I also note that MW50 and GM1 are modeled on serveral German fighters, so I don't understand your complaint there.
As english isn't my native language I'm not 100% sure but AFAIK "several" means more than two.
As Karnak said, I don't think there needs to be aircraft specialized for shooting down V-1s before we can include them.
Especially if the aircraft (unperked) would mess up the rest of the gameplay. As AH evolves we might see them someday perked (according to current perking policy). Intercepting a target which has slightly faster level top speed compared to AH's faster unperked planes isn't very hard to do because usually you would have enough alt to catch it with.
We have planes that have shot down V-1s in real life in the game already. For example Fleet Air Arm's Avenger's turret gunner shot one down. :)
As for having them in AH...I dunno, maybe they would be cool...I really don't have an opinion on that..depends on how they would be implemented.
-
Why perk the V1? I don't see why it should be as high as 50 perkies.... there are several ways of limiting the use of them though. Only allow them at certain forward fields and again they only have a 'spawn point' which basically means that they can only aim at certain fields - you deploy the launcher at any given spawn point which can then only fire at certain targets (perhaps deploying could cost a few perkies). Whether they hit or not is part of the chance of launching one. Obviously I guess you'd have to have a set limit on how many you can launch at any one time from a particular base.
-
v1 rockets would be fun...but should only be able to be used against bases oh lets say at least 60k away. that way they can easily be intercepted by whatever happens to see them. as for intercepts well theyd be fun to...the suicide ones with the 20 rockets in there nose.
-
Let everyone launch one a day......
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
P-47M was used to intercept them;):D
Very, very doubtful since the P-47M went operational in April 1945.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Very, very doubtful since the P-47M went operational in April 1945.
I did some reading and you are correct. I was under the presumption that while the P-47M was not designed to combat the the V-1's(some folks believe that) that they were the the right medicine at the right time. AT 480 MPH, they would indeed work well at intercepting them. However, by September of 44 the Allies had overun most all of the V-1 launching sites and they were no longer a threat. Besides, a 425 MPH D30 could run the thing down anyway.
However, you should know that the first of the P-47M's arrived in the UK in October of 44. Production was full bore on the M at this. time. They encountered several problems initially in the ETO but were worked out soon. All operational P-47M's were allocated to the 56th FG.
sorry to hijack this thread.
-
ammo, remember that the V-1 flew at less than 1500m altitude at a speed of ~560-650kph. The speed of the Jug quoted was at "high" altitudes.
Did you also know that ALL the R-2800 engines in the P-47M that arrived in GB in early 1945 had to be replaced because of extensive corrosion besides your mentioned ignition breakdowns at high altitudes, low cylinder head temps and short range.
-
The P-47M was no slouch at low alts either. It was pacing with the tempest.
There is a long list of teething problems for the P-47M once it was made operational in the fall of 44. It really was rushed into action too soon. I suggest Warren Bodies book for the complete list in detail and even some nuggets that cannot be found anywhere else. (yes I know all of the problems).
Actually the venerable R-2800-57 (capable of 3600 HP!!) were available in the spring of 44. Reference pg 238 of Warren Bodies book.
Luckily, Hitech/Pyro hasnt yet modeled problems for any of the planset as of yet, so we can only assume they will model a fully capable P-47M.
One of those little nuggets--
"In testing the new WEP rating, we instrumented an engine completely, including detonation detectors which allowed us to determine just how high we could run the manifoild pressure and carbuerator air temp without (experiencing) detonation. All HP was measured with a calibrated torquemeter." Then, with quiet authority, Brab dropped his bombshell: "on the test engine, as installed on the first YP-47M [42-27385]- we repeatedly ran up to 3600 HP with no recorded problems! Thats 3600 HP out of 2800 cubic inches on grade 100/130 OCTANE gasoline in 1944-1945. After about 250 hours of very intensive testing, the engine and airframe were adjudged to be dangerously worn and were retired from the program"
He then goes on to say something even more amazing. The same AC, 42-27835, had been bought by Bill Odom and he called for info on the AC. He stated that he intendedto race the AC in the 1947 BENDIX Trophy "R" raec from LA to Cleveland. He said the AC was runnign flawlessly after Brab had warned him that that was the same AC that had undegone those grueling tests.
WOW
-
I don't think it'll ever happen....at least player launched in the MA
Tronsky
-
The v1 isn't a rocket...
It's more a cruise missile, powered by a pulse jet.
The v2 was a rocket.
-
ammo, what were the USAAF FG or FS that had operational P-47Ms in the fall of 1944?
-
.....Hmmmm, let me think.:)
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
P-47M was used to intercept them;):D
Actually, while the motivation to produce the P-47M was to intercept Doodle Bugs, they never did. This was simply due to the fact that by the time the Ms went operational, allied troops had over-run most of the V-1 launch sites. Not to mention that the Tempest and Meteor were available in adequate numbers by then.
Also, Republic did their own development program using an old P-47C and the new R2800 C series engine about a year before the USAAF formally requested a hotrod model for chasing down V-1s. Essentially, when presented with the new requirement, they pulled out the year-old test data and said, more or less, "been there, done that." If I recall correctly, the three YP-47Ms were P-47D-27-RE fighters pulled from the production line and retro-fitted with the high-output C series engines. This engine was also adopted for the long-range P-47N, which could also trace its ancestry back to that old P-47C test mule, which first tested the new wing with integral fuel tanks (previous Jugs carried all internal fuel in the fuselage).
My regards,
Widewing
-
From worldwar2aviation.com:
The production P-47M fighters did not reach operational status until after many of the V-1 launch sites were over-run by Allied ground forces. Deployed to 3 squadrons of the 56th Fighter Group, the new fighter likely did not chase very many flying bombs. Inasmuch as most aviation historians claim that the P-47M was designed specifically to intercept the V-1, it will come as a surprise to them to learn that the prototype existed more than a year before the first V-1 was launched at Britain. Moreover, the P-47D, deployed in large numbers, was certainly fast enough to overtake the V-1. It was only coincidence that the XP-47M and the R-2800 C series engines were available when the V-1's began falling on London.
The new M models also suffered a fair amount of teething troubles. The C series engines suffered from high altitude ignition leaks and burned pistons. The 56th kept many of their older D models until the new M had its bugs corrected. Nonetheless, once sorted out, the P-47M was the fastest propeller driven fighter to see combat service in any Air Force in the ETO. Capable of speeds up to 475 mph, the M was a true "hotrod"."
I believe that covers most of what ammo, MiloMorai and widewing said.
Since AH does not cover real life maintenance or reliability issues, I want to ask MiloMorai, what is your point about the initial problems the P-47M experienced? To point out flaws? To imply subtlely that the was a flawed bird and does not need to be modelled in AH?
If so, look at other planes and their reliability issues:
109G6.....mysterious engine fires, one of which killed Marseilles
N1K2J......engines were notoriously unreliable, prone to failure
Me262.....engine flameouts made this aircraft more suitable to experten than new pilots
Me163.....numerous problems with launching, extremely hazardous fuels prone to exploding...etc.
Just wondering.............
"
-
Originally posted by eddiek
From worldwar2aviation.com:
The production P-47M fighters did not reach operational status until after many of the V-1 launch sites were over-run by Allied ground forces. Deployed to 3 squadrons of the 56th Fighter Group, the new fighter likely did not chase very many flying bombs. Inasmuch as most aviation historians claim that the P-47M was designed specifically to intercept the V-1, it will come as a surprise to them to learn that the prototype existed more than a year before the first V-1 was launched at Britain. Moreover, the P-47D, deployed in large numbers, was certainly fast enough to overtake the V-1. It was only coincidence that the XP-47M and the R-2800 C series engines were available when the V-1's began falling on London.
The new M models also suffered a fair amount of teething troubles. The C series engines suffered from high altitude ignition leaks and burned pistons. The 56th kept many of their older D models until the new M had its bugs corrected. Nonetheless, once sorted out, the P-47M was the fastest propeller driven fighter to see combat service in any Air Force in the ETO. Capable of speeds up to 475 mph, the M was a true "hotrod"."
I believe that covers most of what ammo, MiloMorai and widewing said.
Since AH does not cover real life maintenance or reliability issues, I want to ask MiloMorai, what is your point about the initial problems the P-47M experienced? To point out flaws? To imply subtlely that the was a flawed bird and does not need to be modelled in AH?
If so, look at other planes and their reliability issues:
109G6.....mysterious engine fires, one of which killed Marseilles
N1K2J......engines were notoriously unreliable, prone to failure
Me262.....engine flameouts made this aircraft more suitable to experten than new pilots
Me163.....numerous problems with launching, extremely hazardous fuels prone to exploding...etc.
Just wondering.............
"
Just for the record, worldwar2aviation.com is me..... :D
Maybe we should offer another source for confirmation. Bodie or Bowers will do. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
No eddiek was not my intention but if you see it that way, OK;) Anyway it was ammo that brought up the reliability issue first.
Now a slight correction. The 1st P-47M arrived at Boxted Jan.3 1945. (see this date Monk, no 1944) By late Feb. 1945, all P-47Ms had been grounded even though some operational sorties had been flown. It was the second half of March 1945 before the P-47M would again be combat ready(truly operational).
OBTW, Marseille was killed (Sept 30 1942) while flying a F-4, not a G-6. Marseille was long dead since the G-6 did not reach front-line units until Feb.1943. Marseille also flew in I./JG27, not II./JG27 which was the first JG27 unit to receive the G-6.
-
My apologies MiloMorai......I had read that Marseilles was in a G6 when he died, thus my reference to that plane.
Widewing! I knew that was your website, just poking fun at ya!
BTW, never noticed your pic at the bottom before, maybe I just didn't scroll down far enough before today.
P.S.: STILL waiting on the rest of your interview with Robert S. Johnson to be posted......;)
-
milomorai--
I have the evidence to rebutt that jan 45 dayte at home. I will quote it from there after work.
Very, very doubtful since the P-47M went operational in April 1945.
jan, or apr?
-
Here is the website I looked at that told me what plane Marseille was in:
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hanstate.html
Of course, I was still wrong, they said it was a G-2, not a G-6. Still, I seem to recall reading about his plane type suffering from engine fires, will have to look for the source again.
!
-
me to eddiek, was a new G-2 that broke an oil line and caught fire.:o
-
Milo, you are correct, and I stand corrected. It rolled out ready for delivery in Oct.
(http://home.satx.rr.com/pointblank/films/p-47m_date.jpg)