RHS Aircraft Lists (With PR Spitfire)

[JeffroK]

Basic Info
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air ... ngance.htm
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air ... hudson.htm
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air ... rraway.htm
http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/raaf2/html/veng.htm
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircr ... geance.htm
http://www.indianairforce.nic.in/ Royal Indian Air Force Histories check AF Squadrons on right.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/g ... hhids.html

10 minutes work.

[el cid again]

YOU entered the Hudson as a Fighter Bomber, I was pointing out such fallacy. It appears that YOU made an entry without checking sources

Yes I did. And it is a violation of CHS/RHS policy to do that. And my request for verification was never honored - so I got burned - and I won't do that again. I was too respectful of someone who said it was wrong because the plane was used by RAAF as a fighter. I still believe the person told the truth insofar as he believed it to be, that he was sincere and trying to be helpful. It would not shock me to learn he is right too. But I have not seen it in a reference, and I won't use it until I do. The problem is one of time: I don't have months or years to get this right.
I love to read everything I can before I write anything, but that is not going to get a mod done any time this year, much less this month. I do not have time to read every word I own already - you would appreciate this if you could see my collections. I probably have a file with materials on many of these planes - but I do not have a staff to say "go dig up all you can find on the Mossie, read it and write me a report on what versions were used in PTO." I assume (dangerously I know) that the existing database is close - and all I am doing is spot checking to identify gross errors - the publishing the result and asking YOU to tell me what seems to be incorrect.

[el cid again]

I would suggest you broaden your research materials, most of this information isnt hard to find, there are excellent books in the USA about the combat history of US built Aircraft plus reams of the stuff on the Net.

This is impractical. I want to play the game some day, not spend an eternity on research. I NEVER stop researching - or collecting - and in most cases I already have the data. If someone points to a source, I can just go directly to it and read it. The goal is not to do an exhaustive review - this is supposed to be a mature secnario after all. It is a quick review. I have spend too much time on it and am about to move on. IF you have a correction, be specific, and stop criticizing. I am not going to replay like this again. It wastes my most valuable asset: time.

[el cid again]

Then change what you arent sure about. If you are positive and have conclusive proof, great. But you seem to have made some decisond based on limited data.
Some of the "minor" aircraft performed roles which you would still have to replace, what do you do, throw out the P-26 or P-35 and put in P-40's.

Bugger fast, get it right!! Or else end up like vanilla WITP

You appear to have your own agenda - so go deal with it. I am goal oriented, and I am frustrated this is taking months when I want it to take days. I want to mod ships, which are much worse than planes, and logistics, which no one has ever got right. I will be doing this by the weekend too. I am only trying to make planes better than they were - an I believe I have done. I do not understand a PTO without heavy transports, for example. I have something like four to six versions of the P-40 - depending on what counts - how many do you want? The P-26 is right in the middle of Luzon on day one - at a time that whatever is present matters in a strategic sense (if only it is used intelligently).
I agree with Matrix and CHS it belongs in the set. Obviously "get it right" means something different to you - but I have encountered a set of formal rules which include "if it is early in the war it gets priority" and "we do not use web sources because there is so much junk in them" - and I am honoring those rules. [If you believe web sources, Port Chicago Naval Ammunition Depot was destroyed by a US atom bomb 13 months BEFORE the Hiroshima blast - we blew up OUR OWN ammunition depot - with a bomb of a DIFFERENT KIND than we used on Japan - a kind using cylindrical implosion - something in fact we didn't make work until several years after WWII ended. It also was on purpose - not an accident. Why I cannot imagine. But it is all there to read, in great detail, and it alleges to have official sources too.]

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Edit Note: This criticism was valid - see correction post below.

If I read correctly, the Catalina I has less range than the PBY-5 in your list. Not sure about this, but I think the Catalina I basically was a PBY-5, only the armament was different?

K

It is true that the Catalina I is British for a plane that is basically a PBY-5.
However, the data given by USN for a PBY-5 greatly differs from that given by RN for a Catalina I!! And I used a different source because it covers both.

USN says the cruising speed is 115 mph and the range is 2,990 miles.
RN says the cruising speed is 179 mph and the range is 4,000 miles.

I did not use EITHER of these data sets. But I will listen to an argument about why EITHER is the "right" one to use.

It appears that RN uses different equipments, different definitions, and this often has such impacts. They regarded our loading of ships as irresponsible, so the SAME ship in RN service gets less range (see CVEs).
Also, on aircraft, I am told RAF is more conservative than RN or USN - so performance for "identical" planes under worst case assumptions looks less than under best case assumptions. For these reasons, I used a single reference (= same assumptions) whenver possible: Combat Aircraft in World War Two. But sometimes I had to depart from it - and I will here if there is good reason to do so.

Best sources for characteristics of US Navy aircraft and other US service aircraft are:

www.history.navy.mil
These pages actually contain declassified performance data

www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com
This website contains online complete copies of a number of flight manuals and pages of other flight manuals, including the operational characteristics pages.

I highly recommend using these 'primary' sources rather than rehashed secondary sources of which many have perpetuated errors over the years.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Then change what you arent sure about. If you are positive and have conclusive proof, great. But you seem to have made some decisond based on limited data.
Some of the "minor" aircraft performed roles which you would still have to replace, what do you do, throw out the P-26 or P-35 and put in P-40's.

Bugger fast, get it right!! Or else end up like vanilla WITP

You appear to have your own agenda - so go deal with it. I am goal oriented, and I am frustrated this is taking months when I want it to take days. I want to mod ships, which are much worse than planes, and logistics, which no one has ever got right. I will be doing this by the weekend too. I am only trying to make planes better than they were - an I believe I have done. I do not understand a PTO without heavy transports, for example. I have something like four to six versions of the P-40 - depending on what counts - how many do you want? The P-26 is right in the middle of Luzon on day one - at a time that whatever is present matters in a strategic sense (if only it is used intelligently).
I agree with Matrix and CHS it belongs in the set. Obviously "get it right" means something different to you - but I have encountered a set of formal rules which include "if it is early in the war it gets priority" and "we do not use web sources because there is so much junk in them" - and I am honoring those rules. [If you believe web sources, Port Chicago Naval Ammunition Depot was destroyed by a US atom bomb 13 months BEFORE the Hiroshima blast - we blew up OUR OWN ammunition depot - with a bomb of a DIFFERENT KIND than we used on Japan - a kind using cylindrical implosion - something in fact we didn't make work until several years after WWII ended. It also was on purpose - not an accident. Why I cannot imagine. But it is all there to read, in great detail, and it alleges to have official sources too.]

The typical reaction of one who is losing hiw way.

My only agenda is to see FACTUAL information used in attempt to make an already excellent game fantastic!!

And seeing some one basically state he had little or no information on the CW airforces and their Aircraft concerns me. If it was such a large job it should have been given to 3-4 researchers. RHS should have trwled the posts and found other they considered worthy and invited them to help. Instead, you have been lumped with it all. You sound like you want to be somewhere else so the Aircraft will suffer.

[el cid again]

Best sources for characteristics of US Navy aircraft and other US service aircraft are:

www.history.navy.mil
These pages actually contain declassified performance data

www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com
This website contains online complete copies of a number of flight manuals and pages of other flight manuals, including the operational characteristics pages.

It is always nice to have official materials. However, my problem (with respect to US or Japanese aircraft or ships) is not so much a lack of material as knowing just where something is? Also, just because information is official does not mean it is correct - in the sense that it is the only, exact, true factual data. Often one will find a range of values for what is nominally the same aircraft - and because it was collected by different agencies for different purposes in different circumstances - it may not be the same. Thus, a report on the performance of Koga's Zero (the Amchitka Zero the report calls it) is done using US fuel on a damaged aircraft. This may produce different numbers than are found in other places. Sometimes getting out a magnifying glass only means you have too much data, and the problem remains: identify "which data best represents the average situation". When the plane is one I know well, I tend to know where to look to find what I want for this or that purpose. But when the plane is obscure to me, it is sometimes faster to ask someone to point me at the right information. Also, a game like WITP SHOULD have data to UNIFORM standards - and that means one is better off using a single reference than using many different ones - because you don't know how they differ in definitions, standards, etc. - but whoever edited the one source, whatever their standards, surely tried to be consistent. Finally, there is the problem of time: I do not have time to read hundreds of manuals and official reports - and to check one or more per aircraft for hundreds of plane types would require exactly that. I really am not happy to have to review ANY of them: all I wanted to do was convert ceiling to my definition and calculate maneuverability and durability to a common standard. But there appear to be some significant errors, and I feel obliged to address them where identified. But I do so only because it is wrong to ignore them, not because I set out to do so: had the data been consistently good I would not bother. But the data was not uniformly horrible - so I don't think it is a disaster to just address identified or suspected problems.

Anyway, thank you for these sources. Do you have any comparable ones on Canadian or other Commonwealth air forces?