Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on October 01, 2003, 12:47:39 AM
-
I was curious how the various aircraft that make reasonable fighter-bombers perform. I haven’t seen any tests that give climb rates and level speeds while laden. Because I wanted results that were relevant to the MA I set the fuel load to 50% for all aircraft, as full fuel is not normally used for fighter-bomber missions.
Tests:
Time to Target: This is the most subjective test. I used my strike mission method and a fixed target point. The starting point was A24 on the ndisles map. The target point was the 12th parallel due north of A24 at an altitude of 10,000ft. This a about 37.5 miles from the take off location. I started the timer and the engine(s) simultaneously and immediately turned on WEP. After takeoff I set autospeed and kept WEP on until the needle was even with the second yellow marker on the temperature gauge, at which point I turned off WEP. I continued to climb on autospeed until the aircraft reached 10,000ft, at which point I adjusted the course to due north and autoleveled. I stopped the timer the moment the nose of the aircraft map icon touched the 12th parallel.
MIL Speed at 50ft: To get this I climbed the aircraft to 3,000ft and then dove to 50ft. I then autoleveled and waited five minutes before recording the speed.
MIL Speed at 10000ft: To get this I climbed the aircraft to 15,000ft and then dove to 10,000ft. I then autoleveled and waited five minutes before recording the speed.
MIL Climb: To get this I took off, leveled immediately and then set autospeed on. I then recorded the aircraft’s reported climb rate every 2,500ft, starting at 2,500ft.
WEP Climb: To get this I took off, leveled immediately and then set autospeed and WEP on. I then recorded the aircraft’s reported climb rate every 2,500ft, starting at 2,500ft.
Note 1: The instruments in AH are imprecise and all numbers here are my best guess.
Note 2: I am on the fence about including the N1K2-J, but have done so solely due to it’s tremendous 20mm load.
Note 3: I have ordered them in what I think/feel is from best (P-38L) to worst. This is subjective and not meant to final or absolute.
Note 4: In two cases the best loadout was not clear and in each case I tested both potential loadouts.
P-38L Lightning:
(two 1000lb bombs, ten rockets, 2000 .50, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 9:11
MIL Speed at 50ft: 315mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 340mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2500fpm | 5000ft: 2450fpm | 7500ft: 2400fpm | 10000ft: 2300fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2950fpm | 5000ft: 2900fpm | 7500ft: 2800fpm | 10000ft: 2700fpm
F4U-1C Corsair:
(two 1000lb bombs, four rockets, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 10:29
MIL Speed at 50ft: 310mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 320mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2100fpm | 5000ft: 1750fpm | 7500ft: 1650fpm | 10000ft: 1550fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2250fpm | 5000ft: 2200fpm | 7500ft: 2150fpm | 10000ft: 2100fpm
Typhoon Mk Ib:
(two 1000lb bombs, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 9:03
MIL Speed at 50ft: 340mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 360mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2400fpm | 5000ft: 2450fpm | 7500ft: 2050fpm | 10000ft: 1700fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2750fpm | 5000ft: 2450fpm | 7500ft: 2100fpm | 10000ft: 2000fpm
Mosquito Mk VI:
(four 500lb bombs, 700 20mm, 3120 .303, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 9:15
MIL Speed at 50ft: 325mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 360mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2300fpm | 5000ft: 2300fpm | 7500ft: 2350fpm | 10000ft: 2100fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2900fpm | 5000ft: 2750fpm | 7500ft: 2450fpm | 10000ft: 2200fpm
(two 500lb bombs, eight rockets, 50% fuel)
Time to Target: 9:08
MIL Speed at 50ft: 330mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 365mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2400fpm | 5000ft: 2400fpm | 7500ft: 2450fpm | 10000ft: 2200fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 3000fpm | 5000ft: 2900fpm | 7500ft: 2500fpm | 10000ft: 2250fpm
Bf110G-2:
(two 500kg bombs, four rockets, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 10:02
MIL Speed at 50ft: 305mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 330mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2150fpm | 5000ft: 2050fpm | 7500ft: 1950fpm | 10000ft: 1800fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2450fpm | 5000ft: 2400fpm | 7500ft: 2250fpm | 10000ft: 2000fpm
(two 500kg bombs, four 50kg bombs, 50% fuel)
Time to Target: 9:49
MIL Speed at 50ft: 310mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 335mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2250fpm | 5000ft: 2150fpm | 7500ft: 2050fpm | 10000ft: 1900fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2550fpm | 5000ft: 2500fpm | 7500ft: 2350fpm | 10000ft: 2150fpm
P-47D-30 Thunderbolt:
(two 1000lb bombs, one 500lb bomb, ten rockets, eight .50 cal guns, 3400 50 cal, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 11:01
MIL Speed at 50ft: 285mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 315mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 1450fpm | 5000ft: 1450fpm | 7500ft: 1400fpm | 10000ft: 1350fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2100fpm | 5000ft: 2150fpm | 7500ft: 2000fpm | 10000ft: 1950fpm
F6F-5 Hellcat:
(two 1000lb bombs, six rockets, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 10:20
MIL Speed at 50ft: 290mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 305mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2200fpm | 5000ft: 2000fpm | 7500ft: 1900fpm | 10000ft: 1850fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2550fpm | 5000ft: 2450fpm | 7500ft: 2400fpm | 10000ft: 2200fpm
P-51D Mustang:
(two 1000lb bombs, six rockets, six .50 cal guns, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 9:53
MIL Speed at 50ft: 310mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 340mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 1800fpm | 5000ft: 1850fpm | 7500ft: 1850fpm | 10000ft: 1850fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2150fpm | 5000ft: 2100fpm | 7500ft: 2150fpm | 10000ft: 1900fpm
Fw190F-8:
(one 500kg bomb, four 50kg bombs, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 9:56
MIL Speed at 50ft: 305mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 310mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2050fpm | 5000ft: 1800fpm | 7500ft: 1500fpm | 10000ft: 1400fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2550fpm |5000ft: 2250fpm | 7500ft: 2150fpm |10000ft: 2050fpm
N1K2-J Shiden-Kai:
(two 250kg bombs, 900 20mm, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 8:52
MIL Speed at 50ft: 305mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 345mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 3000fpm | 5000ft: 3000fpm | 7500ft: 3000fpm | 10000ft: 2550fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 3550fpm | 5000ft: 3350fpm | 7500ft: 3000fpm |10000ft: 2550fpm
-
what really confuses me is the 10,000 feet lvl speed of the n1k2j.
according to the AH performance charts it is not even close to the 190f8.
yet in your tests it is 35 mph faster @ 10,000 feet.
hmmm whats going on here>?
-
the film viewer gives exact speed.
-
what really confuses me is the 10,000 feet lvl speed of the n1k2j.
according to the AH performance charts it is not even close to the 190f8.
yet in your tests it is 35 mph faster @ 10,000 feet.
hmmm whats going on here>?
Didja even read what Karnak posted?
Fw190F-8:
(one 500kg bomb, four 50kg bombs, 50% fuel)
Time to Target: 9:56
MIL Speed at 50ft: 305mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 310mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2050fpm | 5000ft: 1800fpm | 7500ft: 1500fpm | 10000ft: 1400fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2550fpm |5000ft: 2250fpm | 7500ft: 2150fpm |10000ft: 2050fpm
N1K2-J Shiden-Kai:
(two 250kg bombs, 900 20mm, 50% fuel)
Time to Target: 8:52
MIL Speed at 50ft: 305mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 345mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 3000fpm | 5000ft: 3000fpm | 7500ft: 3000fpm | 10000ft: 2550fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 3550fpm | 5000ft: 3350fpm | 7500ft: 3000fpm |10000ft: 2550fpm
The f8 is heavier to begin with and is carrying 200kg more bombs then the niki in karnaks test.
Also, I dunno what charts you are reading but mil power @ 10k for the f8 is 335, for the niki its 355.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/n1k2speed.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190f8speed.gif)
So it makes ya think, why a heavier slower plane is still a heavier slow plane in karnaks tests, doesnt it? Conspiracy? ;)
-
Interesting test Karnak.. I had done something similar a couple of months ago for the Typhoon and Mossie just to see what sort of impact different loads had on those aircraft flown in different profiles. I know I have the Mossie numbers around here somewhere comparing all types of combinations of fuel/ordinance and speeds and some different critical altitudes for the Mossie.
-
Originally posted by moot
the film viewer gives exact speed.
Yes, it does. But this took me many hours to do as it was and exact speed numbers weren't that important to me. Filming in all and then checking the film was more work than I wanted to do.
Frankly, sustained MIL speeds had the lowest weighting in selecting which was best.
-
Karnak,
If you are interested I could send you the Mossie configuration numbers from my testing. I have exact speeds (film viewer) in a bunch of configurations with different fuel loads/ammo loads, and at a couple of different altitudes just for comparison. Basically, your 325mph and 330mph are off a bit though, they should be more like 314mph and 318mph. The Mossie, clean, can only manage 325mph at sea-level at MIL, 338mph WEP.
If I remember correctly, 1K bombs add about 8mph drag each, 500lb's are 5mph at sea-level. Rockets vary slightly, drop tanks are like 500lbrs, fuel costs 1mph/25%, ammo load made no difference (I even shot away all the .303 to test). This tended to be the same for several aircraft I tested. I had similar test info for the Typhoon also but I can't seem to find it right now.
anyway, if you'd like the info, email me:
soda@hitechcreations.com
-
Interesting test subject here Karnak. Thanks and nicely done BTW.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Didja even read what Karnak posted?
The f8 is heavier to begin with and is carrying 200kg more bombs then the niki in karnaks test.
Also, I dunno what charts you are reading but mil power @ 10k for the f8 is 335, for the niki its 355.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/n1k2speed.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190f8speed.gif)
So it makes ya think, why a heavier slower plane is still a heavier slow plane in karnaks tests, doesnt it? Conspiracy? ;)
hmmm i guess these:
http://www.jannousiainen.net/online_sims/jg_4/index.htm
charts are off then. i thought the data was right from HTC's site.
by using those you will see the discrepency.
my bad if the data is wrong.
-
No Jochen's charts are right if you look at wep.
mil power is the black lines on those charts.
ofcourse with no eng concerns in ah the only power setting that is limited is wep. Its limited by some random number.
So most folks would burn wep in the climb out, then level and let the eng cool, then make their attack and wep again to extend re grab. (avtually they would wep into the ground 80% of the time)
For the most part ah planes are max rpm max throttle till death or exit. Wep is cycled as fast asya can depending on eng cooling time.
So Karnaks tests are good info they really dont reflect real game behavior. Atleast imo.
-
Originally posted by Batz
So Karnaks tests are good info they really dont reflect real game behavior. Atleast imo.
Heh. They reflect my real game behavior, which is all I really had to go on. Everything else is just conjecture and cynical interpetations of other peoples actions.
Except for, ironically given the data Soda is offering, the 50ft MIL speeds. I always climb.
Thanks for the offer Soda, but the deck speeds with ordinance isn't that important really.
-
I always climb to, the question for me was how much to climb, after which point any additional climbing is less productive. The deck speeds, at least to me, offer my escape option not my transit unless the attack is NOE. I don't just have deck speeds but I would have to dig around a bit for all my numbers.
For example, from some stats I have, the Mossie can pull 356mph (MIL) at 8.5K with 2 * 500lb. That's a pretty significant improvement over the deck equiv speed of 315mph (same config). Over 8.5K, performance actually deterorates until you get up to about 15K (377 clean). So, for me, I usually only climb to 8.5K and don't consider using WEP (only adds 3mph). Other aircraft, like the Typhoon, show similar performance points under 10K while aircraft like the P-38/P-47 generally show gradual improvements with each ft of alt added (up to a point).
I like the way you've looked at this though and tend to agree with your placement. Most people just look for "total ordinance potential" but I think you've tried to include other important factors (climb, speed, etc) in your ranking. Too many people just go for something like a P-47D30 because it can pack so much yet realistically when loaded like that it is a sitting duck until it enters the final dive.
-
Thanks Soda. That is what I was trying to do as it seems to me that the choices people were making were not based on actual data, but just assumptions.
Like you I use deck speed only as a last ditch escape method. In that case though my aircraft is clean and on WEP. I included the deck speed with ordinance for the people who just take off and head right for the target without climbing.
The biggest surprise for me was how poorly the Bf110G-2 handled.
I make no attempt to hide my bias for the Mosquito, but truthfully I had taken the German fans assertions that the Bf110G-2 was a far better fighter and strike aircraft seriously and thought I was only protesting for the sake of protesting.
After running the Fighter-Bomber tests I ran some Fighter tests between the Mossie and 110G-2, including a theoretical test in which the Mossie's fuel consumption rate has been fixed.
As a fighter the Bf110G-2 is nearly parable with the Mosquito that has to take extra fuel. It climbs slightly better, but is still slower, poorer at diving, rolling, high speed conrolability and its guns are not as good for fighter killiing. If the Mosquito could limit its fuel and still have range it is a substantially better fighter than the 110G-2. In this case the Mosquito is better than the Bf110G-2 in all ways below 10,000ft.
-
I think people give the Bf110G2 the advantage based on: a little extra external loadout, slightly better acceleration, 9 min of WEP vs 5, those dinky little rear guns (at least they give something shooting backwards), and 30mm forward guns. Fuel duration between the two is about equiv right now if I remember correctly. Thing is, the Mossie can carry internal bombs (no penalty on drag) and hispanos are much more flexible in use than the 30mm's. I know I have a D1.2 marking on my gunsight for the hispanos incase someone decides they want to HO my Mossie.... good luck. The Mossie is certainly faster too, but unfortunately not quite quick enough to out-race a number of aircraft you are bound to meet (La7, P-51, 190D9) unless you get a bit of a head start.
Many of the medium jabo birds though are eclipsed by the heavy fighters who can, in AH, carry the same, or more, loadout and then revert to "fighter-mode" after they lighten up and drop their bombs. Understandable.
-
Gents,
Has anybody noticed the fact that the Mossie and BF110 loose virtually no speed what so ever at sea level or 10K?? I think the 110 might be faster with bombs.
While at the same time the F4U-1C which is faster than both at all alts clean looses 50MPH+ at 10K and 50MPH at sea level. It also sustains a greater loss in climb rate while the Mossie appears to loose nothing.
In fact the Mossie seems to climb better than it's performance charts would indicate while carrying no ordinace. Are they Helium bombs on the Mossie?
Also the Tiffy doesn't seem to loose very much speed at all with 2 1K bombs relative to the F4U or P-51D. In fact it may only loose 10mph.
It seems that Brit and axis planes are fairing much better than American Iron in speed and climb.
-
Karnak,
Did you check climb times to 10,000K with ord?
-
F4UDOA,
"It seems" is a pretty vague testing method, how about some numbers to support your impressions from AH. I believe Karnak was just trying to compare aircraft as modeled in AH so "historical documents" are inappropriate (thats a topic for another thread).
-Soda
-
Karnak, could you run that test with an A20G, 8X500, 25% fuel? I would like to see how that bird compares.
shubie
-
Soda,
Not exactly sure what you mean but here is a little more detail.
The Mossie's top speed at 10K in AH from the AH charts is approx 360MPH to 370MPH. Karnaks test show that with a full load of ordinance the top speed is 365MPH. That is NO loss of speed due to drag from ordinance.
By contrast
The F4U-1C top speed at 10K from the AH charts is 360MPH at mil power and 375MPH at WEP. With a full ordinance load the top speed is reduced to 320MPH at mil power. That is a fairly significant reduction in speed. Not the 50MPH I though earlier (I was looking at WEP) but still 30MPH which is significant enough.
I am not saying that the F4U speed should be higher, it's just that the Mossie shows no loss of speed (or minimal) regardless of loadout.
Climb looks the same.
Mossie max climb on the AH charts at WEP is approx. 2600FPM at sea level. With full ordinance and 50% fuel the climb is 3000FPM. Like I said are those bombs or helium ballons? How do you increase climb by adding ordinace??
By contrast
The F4U-1C has an initial climb of 3200FPM at WEP which is reduced to 2250FPM. That again is a significant reduction.
Do you think the Mossie should not loose any performance from adding ordinace? Am I wrong in my observation?
The Typ, 110 and Mossie all seem to have this anomoly.
-
one factor would be the mossie carrying ord in the bomb bay, which includes no drag penalty.
Also the F4u is carrying more ord (BS american plane overloading) with a single engine compared to the 2 on the mossie.
-
I had to dig a bit for these numbers into some of my tests but here goes:
Remember that the Mossie is only carrying 1K externally, the other 1K internally which only adds about 1mph of drag. They do have drag, 10mph worth, 5mph/bomb, but the bombs are also smaller. It's hard to compare that to something with two 1,000lb bombs hanging in the breeze, but anyway here are some other aircraft to consider that have the same 2K (all external @ sea-level) load carrying:
P-51D, 33mph penalty, 16.5mph/bomb
F4U-C, 25mph penalty, 12.5mph/bomb
Fw190D9, 12mph/bomb (can only carry 1 bomb, centerline, 500kg)
F6F-5, 20mph penalty, 10mph/bomb
P-47D30, 22mph penalty, 11mph/bomb
Typhoon, 17mph penalty, 8.5mph/bomb
P-38, 15mph penalty, 7.5mph/bomb
So, the P-51 is a little higher than most, it would appear the average is more about 10-12mph/bomb for 1,000lb type ordinance (or 500kg). I threw in the Fw190D9 although it only has a single 500kg, but it added half the drag that two bombs would so it came out to the same mph penalty/bomb. If anything, I think the Bf110G2 is a bit of an exception, I seem to remember the drag on the 1000kg option being rather low (more like 3-4mph/bomb) but I don't have those stats with me so I can't be too specific ( I think the mounting on those was different too, close together on centerline).
Move that to an abitrary 10K (as altitudes can favor one aircraft over another) and we get:
P-51D, 38mph penalty, 19mph/bomb (397->359)
Typhoon, 22mph penalty, 11mph/bomb (381 ->360)
P-47D30, 26mph penalty, 13 mph/bomb (362 -> 336)
Mossie, 11mph penalty, 5.5mph/bomb (367 -> 356)
F4U-1C, 28mph penalty, 14mph/bomb (354 -> 331)
Remember though, the Mossie is carrying two 500lbrs, not two 1,000lbs out in the breeze so you would expect there not be as much drag. ALL the stats show a drag increase of about 2-3mph combined for both bombs, barely worth mentioning honestly. The P-51D certainly suffers no more than a Typhoon at 10K, maybe slightly less. Figure that to compare the Mossie fairly you'd have to double the numbers for it, so 22mph and 11mph/bomb, 2mph off the P-47, 3 off the Hog-C, and tied with the Typhoon.
On the climb issue, the C-Hog can maintain 2,500ft/min with 2K, right up through 10K (it varies less than 100ft/min throughout). The P-51D starts slower (2,250ft/min) and surges a bit to (2,650ft/min) in the 5-9K range. The Typhoon starts stronger (2550ft/min) but drops off steadily till 10K (2,000ft/min). The Mossie is more like 3,100ft/min dropping to 2450ft/min by 10K. That said, that's with only 1,000lbs of ord, not 2,000 (I only have 1 test that had only external ord, no internal) so I would expect those numbers to drop a bit with some extra weight. The tests Karnak did include rockets too, those are real killers for performance, something like 1-2mph/rocket in most cases. I didn't include rockets because that unfairly weights the tests a bit (although for Karnaks purpose it was entirely appropriate to include them).
So, looking at the numbers, I don't see anything really amiss. The Typhoon pays a little less penalty for 1K bombs than the average (say 3-4mph total), but the P-38 pays even less. The Mossie, well, it's hard to compare that as it's packing ordinance much differently. It still follows the trend though of losing about the same amount/lb of external carriage, the fact that half the load is internal is an advantage (as you would imagine it should be). Simple differences in bomb-placement on the airframe could account for these small differences.
-Soda
-
F4UDOA,
I wouldn't see it that way. Here are some factors to consider:
1: All twin engined aircraft handle ordinance better than single engined aircraft. They are applying their power to the air more effectively and have more wing area. In addition to that, half of the Mosquito's load is internal which removes the drag factor.
2: I was at 50% fuel for all tests. The Mosquito carries 543 gallons and the F4U-1C carries 237 gallons. Obviously the Mosquito gains more from 50% fuel than the F4U-1C does.
3: I was using the cockpit instruments to get my numbers. The cockpit instruments in AH are not 100% accurate as they intentionally simulate WWII analog devices. As Soda said, my Mosquito numbers are high as he found in his tests using the film viewer to get actuall speeds. I didn't use the film viewer because it would have been more work than I wanted to do, the climb numbers would still have been analog and the speed numbers were, in my opinion, the least important data.
4: The climb numbers were read off of the cockpit guages and may be high due to instrument inaccuracies. That said, the Mosquito is carrying less weight (some of it drag free) on bigger wings and has more power.
As you may have noted I still placed the F4U-1C above the Mosquito.
Yes, all tests are with the ordinance listed. I did no tests with the aircraft clean.
rshubert,
Sure, I can do that. Give me a bit.
-
Hi Soda,
>Remember though, the Mossie is carrying two 500lbrs, not two 1,000lbs out in the breeze so you would expect there not be as much drag.
Even if they were the same size, the Mosquito naturally would least affected by external bombs because it uses more power for the same speed than any of the single-engined aircraft.
As at any speed, the bombs can be expected to produce a constant absolute drag (in HP) for each aircraft, the Mosquito will lose the smallest percentage of its power because its absolute power is the highest.
On the opposite end of the scale is the P-51D that owes its high speed more to good aerodynamics than to power. That's why it's hit worst by the bomb drag.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
rshubert,
Here ya go.
A-20G Havoc:
(eight 500lb bombs, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 11:05
MIL Speed at 50ft: 297mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 314mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 1800fpm | 5000ft: 1550fpm | 7500ft: 1300fpm | 10000ft: 1250fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 1850fpm | 5000ft: 1600fpm | 7500ft: 1450fpm | 10000ft: 1400fpm
Note 1: WEP expired at 7,700ft on continuous WEP climbout.
Note 2: Because I was only testing one aircraft I used the film viewer to get exact speeds for the A-20G.
The reason that I did not include the A-20G in the test is that it is not a Fighter-Bomber. Air-to-air capability after dumping ordinance was included in my ranking considerations.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Soda,
>Remember though, the Mossie is carrying two 500lbrs, not two 1,000lbs out in the breeze so you would expect there not be as much drag.
Even if they were the same size, the Mosquito naturally would least affected by external bombs because it uses more power for the same speed than any of the single-engined aircraft.
As at any speed, the bombs can be expected to produce a constant absolute drag (in HP) for each aircraft, the Mosquito will lose the smallest percentage of its power because its absolute power is the highest.
On the opposite end of the scale is the P-51D that owes its high speed more to good aerodynamics than to power. That's why it's hit worst by the bomb drag.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Oooh, excellent point about the P-51. That makes a LOT of sense, even if we don't have the empirical data to look at.
-
And come on over some time, I will show you a few tricks in a light A-20 that might change your mind about air-to-air in it.
shubie
-
Originally posted by rshubert
And come on over some time, I will show you a few tricks in a light A-20 that might change your mind about air-to-air in it.
shubie
Oh, I know that it can be successful in air-to-air combat in the right hands, but for the average player it is a deathtrap for air-to-air combat.
(I've taken B-26s {there were no A-20Gs in AH at that time} as fighters and killed F4U-1Cs)
-
Hi Rshubert,
>That makes a LOT of sense, even if we don't have the empirical data to look at.
Well, Soda's 10000 ft speed comparison is empirical data, and it confirms the theory :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Good points HoHun, I also considered variations in bombrack dynamics and even position in relation to the aircraft structure (aerodynamic disruptions) can account for small differences. I simply hoped my data indicated that there was no conspiricy theory at work and that a number of tested aircraft all showed similar performance in relation to similar loads. I think the numbers also showed the validity of Karnaks overall rankings in terms of performance.
I hope they fix the Mossie range though, the fuel load on it really is a harsh penalty. I know HT said he's looking into it but I think if they made that change it would improve the Mossie into a very useful aircraft. Right now it tends to be a bit too fringe in use.
-
Excellent information Karnak! Thank you for the tests. What you have done is something I've wanted to do for awhile. I've been screwing around with gathering the effective gun damage potentials of aircraft in the recent past. No Soda not done yet. After spending 3 days home sick I'm now not home and don't plan to go back for awhile.
I think it will be neat to combine your test with my test and view performance information in combination with ordnance/gun damage potential.
The post with my info in it is over in the Analysis of Aircraft Guns thread in this Forum.
-
scJazz,
I quickly did a crude test yeasterday with the Bf110G-2 and Mosquito.
The Bf110G-2 with the external gun pack* carries 1150 20mm rounds and 255 30mm rounds. After strafing two hangers down it had 351 20mm rounds left.
*Taking the external gun pack does not allow the 500kg bombs to be taken.
The Mosquito Mk VI carries an overload of 700 20mm rounds. After strafing one hanger down it had 51 rounds left.
In my rankings I included my estimate of gun damag potential. It is the only reason the N1K2-J made it into the list. However, I also put it well below bomb and rocket damage in importantance due to the danger of applying gun damage in contested airspace. Bombs and rockets can be applied in one fast pass, but guns require multiple passes that bleed away the energy gained from diving. Gun passes are thus more likely to get you killed. That, and durability, are why the N1K2-J is at the bottom of the list.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
scJazz,
I quickly did a crude test yeasterday with the Bf110G-2 and Mosquito.
The Bf110G-2 with the external gun pack* carries 1150 20mm rounds and 255 30mm rounds. After strafing two hangers down it had 351 20mm rounds left.
*Taking the external gun pack does not allow the 500kg bombs to be taken.
The Mosquito Mk VI carries an overload of 700 20mm rounds. After strafing one hanger down it had 51 rounds left.
Totally consistent with the info I have 110G2's guns have in the area of 7000lbs of damage potential. The Mossie's Hispanos have a potential of around 2800lbs.
Hangers require 2731.2lbs by values given.
In my rankings I included my estimate of gun damag potential. It is the only reason the N1K2-J made it into the list. However, I also put it well below bomb and rocket damage in importantance due to the danger of applying gun damage in contested airspace. Bombs and rockets can be applied in one fast pass, but guns require multiple passes that bleed away the energy gained from diving. Gun passes are thus more likely to get you killed. That, and durability, are why the N1K2-J is at the bottom of the list.
I totally agree with the statements regarding droppable ord vs straffing runs. It is more dangerous, more likely to miss, and more time consuming to straff a target. The reason for my looking into the subject at all is related to how many JABOs would be needed for blasting an HQ or how many JABOs are required for torching the town. The thoughts here are mostly about the NOE sneak attack which has a great probability of allowing the pilot(s) to unload ORD to suppress AAA and setup the targets followed by gun passes that finish it off.
-
Karnak,
I haven't had time to look at the internal load of the Mossie or what is external so I won't comment further about the speed until I do.
However the climb of the Mossie is better with ordinance than is listed in the clean climbing condition. I was aware of the fuel load being very heavy in the Mossie so I did some quick adding just to check.
Mossie
Full loaded weight 100% fuel 22,221LBS
Minus 50%(1629lbs) fuel= 20,592LBS
Plus 2 500lbs bombs and 8 rockets approx 2,100lbs= 22692LBS
So the Mossie is heavier with the ordinance even with 50% fuel. Why it climbs so well is a mystery to me.
As far as twin engine a/c climbing better than single engine a/c with bombs. This makes no sense to me. If it was a better climber then it would be so without bombs as well. Climbing has much more to do with power loading than anything else.
-
F4UDOA,
To the best of my knowledge the 22,221lb weight includes 2,000lbs of bombs as that is often listed as its maximum weight.
The Mossie VI's empty weight is 14,300lbs. 14,300 + 3,258 + 2,000 = 19,558. How much would the armament add?
What is the power loading of a laden F4U-1C?
The Mosquito FB.Mk VI Series 2 should have a power loading of 1hp per 6.8lbs while fully laden.
-
I think you're all missing the point here, and that is:
everyone should be in the P-38. :D