Using the TBM-3 in Coral Sea setups

[CAP1]

personally, i think all squads in fso are top notch. you guys are what/who makes fso.

[Devil 505]

I told you the film viewer isn't 100% accurate when showing you the other guy's airspeed, I believe

I'll do you one better. You've flown a TBM at least once in game haven't you? Offline, choose a terrain with fleets.
Now grab a TBM and climb to 20k. When you get within visual range of the fleet you are attacking, dive at full
speed to an indicated air speed of 520 mph. If still in one piece at that speed, do what it takes to slow back to
drop speed and make your attack. Let me know how you do and if you still feel incensed about the unfairness
of the TBMs in the frame. 

I did test the TBM in a 20K dive as well as the accuracy of the Film Viewer vs. in game speed indications. I hit a top speed of 541 mph @ 3500ft and was able to pull out of the dive @ under 3G without shedding any parts, going level @ 400ft. I grabbed a screenshot in game while in the dive and took a screenshot from the film viewer from nearly the same moment. These should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the TBM can dive and survive a dive over 520, as well as the accuracy of the film viewer indicated speed.


From in game. True air speed: 536


From film viewer, as close to matching the exact time of the in game screenshot as I could get. True air speed: 537

Raw AH film: http://www.mediafire.com/download/xxu1xlo1k30uukd/TBM_test_2.ahf

Sorry Arlo, but the TBM is clearly capable of higher speed than you think. And the film viewer is more accurate than you believe. You might have not reached 500 in your dive, but as far as I'm concerned, those TBMs in my initial screen shot are in fact going as fast as shown.

[Arlo]

I did test the TBM in a 20K dive as well as the accuracy of the Film Viewer vs. in game speed indications. I hit a top speed of 541 mph @ 3500ft and was able to pull out of the dive @ under 3G without shedding any parts, going level @ 400ft. I grabbed a screenshot in game while in the dive and took a screenshot from the film viewer from nearly the same moment. These should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the TBM can dive and survive a dive over 520, as well as the accuracy of the film viewer indicated speed.


From in game. True air speed: 536


From film viewer, as close to matching the exact time of the in game screenshot as I could get. True air speed: 537

Raw AH film: http://www.mediafire.com/download/xxu1xlo1k30uukd/TBM_test_2.ahf

Sorry Arlo, but the TBM is clearly capable of higher speed than you think. And the film viewer is more accurate than you believe. You might have not reached 500 in your dive, but as far as I'm concerned, those TBMs in my initial screen shot are in fact going as fast as shown.

I did not say it wasn't capable of high speed. How did your torp run fare?

And airspeed disparity in the film viewer has nothing to do with your plane. It deals the the planes of other pilots you record.

P.S. Speed in the viewer appears to be ground speed

[CAP1]

do your test this way. one of you take a cv out away from the action in mw or lw. get a squad of defenders to it. the other take a squad of attackers, and attack it in the manner in which you're discussing. both of ya film it, and post the films.

[Devil 505]

I did not say it wasn't capable of high speed. How did your torp run fare?

And airspeed disparity in the film viewer has nothing to do with your plane. It deals the the planes of other pilots you record.

P.S. Speed in the viewer appears to be ground speed

The torp run over the boats was less than successful, damn ack. I made the same approach you did. First run, the puffy got me at 7K and the second the ack tore me to shreds in the 180 turn. Maybe the Ack lethality should remain default for FSO in this setup if using TBMs.

P.S. The ground speed is the same as TAS on the E6B in the screenshot.

[perdue3]

B5N has closer performance stats to the TBD than the TBM-3 does. Therefore, it should be the proper substitute.

[Triton28]

B5N has closer performance stats to the TBD than the TBM-3 does. Therefore, it should be the proper substitute.

You're still not accounting for the ruggedness of the airframe.   That's huge considering we're talking about torpedo bombers.   Ability to take damage and continue to fly is a large part of survivability for planes in this role.

[Arlo]

Airframe strain becomes apparent under 500 IAS



A little above 500 ias I experienced partial structural failure.



It involved loss of rudder




Under 520 ias there was extreme oscillation. The aircraft completely self-destructed a second later.

The odds of any TBM you filmed making a successful torpedo attack under conditions even slightly slower that this are miniscule.

[Arlo]

The torp run over the boats was less than successful, damn ack. I made the same approach you did. First run, the puffy got me at 7K and the second the ack tore me to shreds in the 180 turn. Maybe the Ack lethality should remain default for FSO in this setup if using TBMs.

P.S. The ground speed is the same as TAS on the E6B in the screenshot.

Indicated air speed is how most squads operate.

[Arlo]

Maybe the Ack lethality should remain default for FSO in this setup if using TBMs.

If it wasn't default it was damn close. The B5Ns would suffer the same.

[perdue3]

You're still not accounting for the ruggedness of the airframe.   That's huge considering we're talking about torpedo bombers.   Ability to take damage and continue to fly is a large part of survivability for planes in this role.

OMG dude. Ok, listen to this:

A B-17 is well armored right? Ok, a fighter against it in its day (1943) could be a FW 190A-5. Do you have any problems killing the heavily armored B-17 (more armored than a TBM) in a FW 190A-5? NO. You do not. Why? Because the 190A-5 is a superior aircraft. Armor counts some, yes, but not enough for that to be the sole reason why we keep the TBM-3 as a TBD-1. Even the well armored 1944 ride that is the TBM-3 is able to die to an A6M2. Granted it is not easy and eats up a TON of ammo, but still possible. My point is, it may be more armored than the Kate but not enough for a case against using the B5N.

[Arlo]

OMG dude. Ok, listen to this:

A B-17 is well armored right? Ok, a fighter against it in its day (1943) could be a FW 190A-5. Do you have any problems killing the heavily armored B-17 (more armored than a TBM) in a FW 190A-5? NO. You do not. Why? Because the 190A-5 is a superior aircraft. Armor counts some, yes, but not enough for that to be the sole reason why we keep the TBM-3 as a TBD-1. Even the well armored 1944 ride that is the TBM-3 is able to die to an A6M2. Granted it is not easy and eats up a TON of ammo, but still possible. My point is, it may be more armored than the Kate but not enough for a case against using the B5N.

Again, since you weren't there (unless a squaddie let you fly under their account), let me refer you to the logs:

I'll just post multiple credits this time ...


Shadow
00:50:58 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by PCHute.
00:53:23 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Willis.


Fester
00:30:34 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by mbailey.
00:31:09 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Triton28.
00:31:53 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by cobra89.
00:40:42 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by cactus.

kappa
00:22:19 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by FiLtH.
00:35:21 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Trap78.


49Boob
00:31:26 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Drill.
00:32:11 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68JR.

49Dingo
00:32:30 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by RedBrd.
00:33:54 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68Raptor.

jarbo
00:27:56 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68hobo.
00:28:42 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68boxcar.

vSixO
00:28:33 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68RacrX.
00:29:32 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by luckie.

neodad
00:29:55 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68Wooley.
00:33:24 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by JazzCH.

Dantoo
23:04:16 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by DrDigr1.
23:08:56 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Doc72CH.
23:12:04 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Vlkyrie1.

skewer
23:12:59 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by EagleCH.
23:13:06 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by TracerX.

JETSOM
22:59:58 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Guthrie.
23:00:10 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Seighin.

Fish42
23:12:22 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Nefari.
23:13:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Bern1.

DAKone
23:04:10 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKBunk.
23:04:17 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKSofty.

TxCoyote
23:00:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Wizard.
23:00:04 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Branch37.

 

[ImADot]

Maybe the Ack lethality should remain default for FSO in this setup if using TBMs.

If it wasn't default it was damn close. The B5Ns would suffer the same.

IIRC, auto-ack for this FSO was 0.1 of MA standard. Depending on the FSO setup, ack is usually somewhere between 0.1 and 0.4 of MA standard lethality. The whole idea of turning down the ack is to allow players to fight other people in planes, not fight auto-ack...which is also why we don't allow people to man the guns at bases or on ships.

[Arlo]

If it wasn't default it was damn close. The B5Ns would suffer the same.


IIRC, auto-ack for this FSO was 0.1 of MA standard. Depending on the FSO setup, ack is usually somewhere between 0.1 and 0.4 of MA standard lethality. The whole idea of turning down the ack is to allow players to fight other people in planes, not fight auto-ack...which is also why we don't allow people to man the guns at bases or on ships.

Ack was a killer frame 3

[perdue3]

To wrap this up for me, I have one final question for CAP (or some other designer). As far as my understanding goes this is what I take from this thread:

Although most agree that the B5N has a more similar performance sheet, the TBM-3 will remain the substitution for the TBD-1 Devastator because it is United States Navy. CAP, am I correct in this statement?