Drop Tanks.

[el cid again]

Yeah...Kinda makes me think small research was done regarding the "range" of some of the planes, or maybe they did not understand drop tanks were NOT for ferry range, but for combat missions?

Not sure where that idea comes from? Planes surely DO use drop tanks on ferry missions if that is required to make the other field. And why not? It would be silly not to. You want to study some drop tanks, and in WWII, study the Mosquito, particularly the recon ships.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yeah...Kinda makes me think small research was done regarding the "range" of some of the planes, or maybe they did not understand drop tanks were NOT for ferry range, but for combat missions?

Not sure where that idea comes from? Planes surely DO use drop tanks on ferry missions if that is required to make the other field. And why not? It would be silly not to. You want to study some drop tanks, and in WWII, study the Mosquito, particularly the recon ships.

No, what I meant was, it would seem somebody did not realize drop tanks were used for combat missions, and not JUST for ferry range..(Of course tanks were used for BOTH.)[8D]

[JeffroK]

Only in the USAAF.

Especially in the early years, the British had Ferry tanks which were not intended to be dropped, though by 1943 the Hurri IIB had 2 x 44gal Drop Tanks as an option (Range of 920 miles when fitted)

Many Bombers would have Ferry tanks fitted into their Bomb Bays and a Mossie PR version had permanent tanks in the Bomb Bay.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Only in the USAAF.

Especially in the early years, the British had Ferry tanks which were not intended to be dropped, though by 1943 the Hurri IIB had 2 x 44gal Drop Tanks as an option (Range of 920 miles when fitted)

Many Bombers would have Ferry tanks fitted into their Bomb Bays and a Mossie PR version had permanent tanks in the Bomb Bay.

Yeah, and the point I have been trying to make all along, is that (ever since UV days), whoever gave figures for the "extended range", and the figures for the "combat range" was not being real uniform in their range calculations. Some planes were given a range as if they had "drop tanks". Other planes were not given that benefit whatsoever, but nearly all planes were given an "extended(ferry) range"....
At present, I feel Sid is working to correct this drop tank problem, but I pesonally do not feel it is necessary to "re-do" every plane, just flagrant examples of combat range errors.
I suspect the original designers correctly listed the "normal combat range" listed in tech manuals, without follow-up to see how prolific certain planes actually used drop tanks, (to alter that tech manuals figures.)
I have already proven this is seemingly the case with EVERY IN-GAME P 47, and the F6F, and F4F-4 as well.
I have in the past few hours found several more "obvious" ommisions" of drop tanks, but I am trying to verify the commonness(?) of their use before posting which planes.
(Not all American.)

[el cid again]

I created a mod where ALL these planes exist in 12/41 AND are assigned to units in Saigon, Manila, Clark, Oahu, Cayagan or Anchorage. I took the data from unit screens. It is rounded down by the code to the nearest multiple of 60 - the plane data screens usually show a few more miles range IF you multiply endurance times cruising speed and divide by 60 minutes/hour. The database endurance is a somewhat artificial creature: IF you set this value THEN the transfer range is exactly right and the derived extended/normal ranges are "right" in our somewhat arbitrary game terms (that is, they are 33% and 25% of the proper transfer range). Real life no drop tank endurance may be - usually is - a different value - and if used (was used) creates a grossly wrong set of ranges (due to code algorithms). There is no set range per drop tank - it is probably a function of time per unit size.

Plane, database endurance, range, Hexes: transfer/extended/normal
Japanese:
A6M2 474 1920 32/10/8
A6M3 217 1800 30/10/7
A6M5 235 1500 25/8/6
C6N1 819 3300 55/18/13
Ki-43I 492 1920 32/10/8
Ki-43II 341 1980 33/11/8
Ki-44II 208 1020 17/5/4
Ki-44III 147 1020 17/5/4
Ki-61I 165 18/6/4
Ki-61II 144 16/5/4
Ki-84 132 17/5/4
Ki-100 227 22/7/5
American:
F-4 181 2340 39/13/9
F-5C 179 3660 61/20/15
F-6A 78 3960 66/22/16
F-6D 94 2340 39/13/9
P-38G 321 1440 24/8/6
P-38J 504 2580 43/14/10
P-38L 504 2580 43/14/10
P-39D 159 1080 18/6/4
P-40E 144 840 14/4/3
P-40N 185 1080 18/6/4
P-47D 245 1800 30/10/7
P-47N 199 2280 38/12/9
P-51B 225 2220 37/12/9
P-51D 235 2280 38/12/9
P-400 159 1080 18/6/4
Allied
Sea Hurricane 219 1080 18/6/4
F4F-4/FM-1 Wildcat 397 1260 21/7/5
P-63A 202 2160 36/12/9
Hurricane IV 140 900 15/5/3
Mosquito B.XVI 818 4560 76/25/18
Mosquito FB.VI 250 1740 29/9/7
Mosquito PR.XVI 840 4680 78/26/19
Seafire I/II 540 9/3/2
Seafire III/XV 720 12/4/3
Spitfire VB 209 1140 19/6/4
Spitfire VIII 172 1140 19/6/4
Tempest 399 1920 32/10/8
I-16 167 780 13/4/3
Lagg-3 134 660 11/3/2
La5FN 155 720 12/4/3

[el cid again]

No, what I meant was, it would seem somebody did not realize drop tanks were used for combat missions, and not JUST for ferry range..(Of course tanks were used for BOTH.)

Then we are in sync - not sure you said what you meant - but you meant what is correct - and that is all that matters.

[el cid again]

Yeah, and the point I have been trying to make all along, is that (ever since UV days), whoever gave figures for the "extended range", and the figures for the "combat range" was not being real uniform in their range calculations. Some planes were given a range as if they had "drop tanks". Other planes were not given that benefit whatsoever, but nearly all planes were given an "extended(ferry) range"....

You were right - except slightly confused. Some planes had range given without tanks, some with. Also some were creative writing - more than 200% of actual (a famous modder complained my F1M Pete was no longer "a long range plane" - but why he insists it was is beyond my kin)?
But ALL of us MUST assign ONLY ONE range per plane - that is we do not get to pick normal combat range, extended combat range and transfer range: The first two values are ALWAYS derived from the transfer range by the altorithm 25% and 33% (usually rounded down, but rarely not, for reasons known only to hard code readers).

[el cid again]

Because it is in RAF documentation, the Thunderbold II DID have drop tanks already. But because it was not in several of the US references, the P-47 did not - although I actually found it in American Warplanes of World War II. That makes it documented and confirmable from easily available references - so it is in.

Now what is this about F-4Fs and F-6Fs? They are not listed with drop tanks. Only the Sea Hurricane - of all carrier planes - is. Tell me about this - and where you are finding it. Hopefully in a standard reference book - more hopefully one on the listed ones for CHS. But tell me. Maybe the ranges given include drop tanks - but I don't have the tanks themselves - and for consistency should.

By the way, neither stock nor CHS ever used drop tanks - although apparently some of you have done. This means RHS is the first mod to attempt to do so - and I wish it to be comprehensive (therefore fair).

Someone said something about the Hyabusa. I know of no tank for it either - and it badly needs one - its range is awful.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Because it is in RAF documentation, the Thunderbold II DID have drop tanks already. But because it was not in several of the US references, the P-47 did not - although I actually found it in American Warplanes of World War II. That makes it documented and confirmable from easily available references - so it is in.

Now what is this about F-4Fs and F-6Fs? They are not listed with drop tanks. Only the Sea Hurricane - of all carrier planes - is. Tell me about this - and where you are finding it. Hopefully in a standard reference book - more hopefully one on the listed ones for CHS. But tell me. Maybe the ranges given include drop tanks - but I don't have the tanks themselves - and for consistency should.

By the way, neither stock nor CHS ever used drop tanks - although apparently some of you have done. This means RHS is the first mod to attempt to do so - and I wish it to be comprehensive (therefore fair).

Someone said something about the Hyabusa. I know of no tank for it either - and it badly needs one - its range is awful.

Watch your mail Sid........

[el cid again]

There is a Ki-43I in existence - and it appears it is back in production - in fact I saw one of these at Tillimook - but forgot about it.

The thing is - the range is very different from the reference books.
It is almost the same as the Ki-43II if the same tanks are used. Since this is NOT documentable, but web (and physically) verifiable,
I need an opinion. Do we give the Oscar I a 750 mile range - or a 1950 mile range?


see

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9161581

[ChezDaJez]

There is a Ki-43I in existence - and it appears it is back in production - in fact I saw one of these at Tillimook - but forgot about it.

Not production, restoration.

Leave the Oscar's range as is. The IJA had little need for long range combat flights and I know of no instances in which one was attempted.

Chez

[el cid again]

The IJA had little need for long range combat flights and I know of no instances in which one was attempted.

Read the link: it is clear that Oscars routinely made the flight to Guadalcanal from Rabaul WITHOUT the difficulty Saburo Sakai reports the Zero had. And in the opeining campaign - Oscars flew out of Indochina to Malaya - something impossible with my "correct" Oscars - have been trying to figure that out - and now I have it:

The references refer to the Oscar I without drop tanks. The real world had them wet winged from the get go - and if need be they had 88 gallons more fuel!

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

There is a Ki-43I in existence - and it appears it is back in production - in fact I saw one of these at Tillimook - but forgot about it.

Not production, restoration.

Leave the Oscar's range as is. The IJA had little need for long range combat flights and I know of no instances in which one was attempted.

Chez

Chez....I have deferred to you in the past because of your excellent knowledge of aircraft. That said, I have found a site quoting a squadron history showing a unit at Rabaul regularly flew escort from there to Guadalcanal.
This is verifiable and important because Saburo Sakai( IJN ) devoted a chapter in his book making it clear the same flight was a real chore in an A6M2, and the pilots had to fly very lean, just above stall speed to have the fuel to make the flight.
I.E.:The Hayabusa could make the same trip daily, without the "drama" of the A6M2..
In looking at your comments, I must ask, is it more important to have factual (historical) specs on a plane, or do we give them specs based on a percieved "need".(This is your word I am using, hope it is not out of context.) I can provide the Hayabusa squadron's info, as written by the members of that squadron, recorded at the New Zealand Pilots' Museum..

[m10bob]

From the narrative:


"The Hayabusa proved itself in action. As a dogfighter its reputation was esteemed, it became popular with the Army Pilots and the Ki-43 burst upon the British, Dutch, American and Chinese in Spring of 1942. Second only in numbers to the Navy Zero, a total of 5,919 Ki-43s were manufactured between 1938 and 1945.

In July 1942 the 1st Army Sentai converted from the Type 97 to the Hayabusa fighter and during December 1942 the unit was sent to Rabaul from where, having arrived in January 1943, it participated in attacks on Guadalcanal, In April 1943 the unit's entire strength went to New Guinea, leaving a small detachment to defend Rabaul.

The 11th Sentai, at the commencement of the Pacific War, also flew the Type 97 fighter aircraft. In August 1942 the unit received the Hayabusa Type 1 aircraft before departing for Singapore in mid September. At the beginning of December, the unit went to Surabaya and on to Truk Island. They now had 61 aircraft and 61 pilots. Mid December they accompanied Navy bombers and larded at Rabaul's West Airfield to provide air defense for the Rabaul area, participating also in battles over Guadalcanal. In July 1943 the unit was transferred to Manchuria, stopping in Japan to rearm. The Type 1 Hayabusas remained in Rabaul.

In early 1944, 160 fighters were sent from Rabaul leaving practically no air defence. After the evacuation of the major part of the Japanese Air Force from Rabaul, their flying was restricted to local flights in early morning and evenings, before and after Allied fighter patrols were on station. The flights appeared to be for the purpose of morale building.

The remaining Japanese aircraft were known as the 'Ghost Squadron", seldom being seen during attacks on Rabaul, and operating in the evenings following the departure of Allied aircraft for their home bases, some distance away, before nightfall.

Our Oscar, Nakajima Ki-43, serial number 750, was constructed in November 1942 and despatched to Truk Island, possibly via an aircraft carrier sent to equip both the 1st and 11th Sentai before their arrival in Rabaul."

[m10bob]

It's not a matter of opinion..These are the specs of a Hayabusa Mk I which had been residing on the display floor of the New Zealand Fighter Pilots Air Museum until 1999..

Length: 29' 4"
Height: 10' 9"
Wingspan: 35' 7"
Empty Weight: 3,821 lb
Gross Weight: 5,850 lb
Maximum Speed: 320 mph
Service Ceiling: 36,800'
Range: 1,864 miles (with drop tanks)
Powerplant: One Nakajima Ha-105 1,100 hp 14 cylinder radial
Armament: One 12.7mm machine gun
One 7.7mm machine gun
External bombload: Two 250 kg (550 lb) bombs

Please see the pertinent "drop tank" info.....




Museum Hours

The New Zealand Fighter Pilots Museum is open seven days a week from 9-00am to 4-00pm (extended hours in January).

Admission Costs


Adults: $8-00, Children: $4-00, Family: $20-00 (2 adults/3 children), Groups: $7-00 (15+)

Getting to the Museum


Wanaka is situated in the Southern Lakes district of the South island of New Zealand and is easily accessible from the major cities of the South Island as well as, internationally, from many countries of the world.

With direct flights from Asia, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and the Pacific Islands you can be in Wanaka within two hours of your arrival in New Zealand.

The closest domestic airport is Queenstown (one hours drive from Wanaka).

We are 5 hours drive from Christchurch and 3 hours from Dunedin at Wanaka Airport, which is 7 kilometres from Wanaka township on the main West Coast/Queenstown highway. Look for the Warbirds Museum signs.

Wanaka Connexions operate daily services from Queenstown to Wanaka and return.

For further information about the Museum


New Zealand Fighter Pilots Museum
State Highway 6
Wanaka
NEW ZEALAND

Telephone: +64-3-443-7010
Facsimile: +64-3-443-7011
Email: ibrodie@nzfpm.co.nz

[JeffroK]

Possibly,

The Hayabusa transitted via Buin/Shortlands et al and refueled ??

Thats how Marauders hit Rabaul from Townsville.

I also cant see where they "regularly" took place in action over Guadalcanal, and it doesnt state that they accompanied bomers to G/canal, just to Rabaul.

I would check this, and any of Sakai's claims, a lot closer before accepting them.

[JeffroK]

Maybe the CHS team should also allow a limited amount of supporting info from the Net, especially Joe Baughers site on US aircraft which goes into a lot of detail.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/b ... /ki43.html
(He mentions the Tanks but not the range!!)


There is as much chance of getting poor info from a book as the net (Well, nearly as much chance)

Allied aircraft which should have drop tanks are:

(At Least)
P-38
P-39 & P-400
P-40
P-47 & Thunderbolt II
P-51
P-63
Hurricane II
Spitfires
F4 & Martlets
F6

Some others are possibles like the Dauntless & Boomerang.

Its now a case of finding data on them, enough to keep the CHS team happy.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Possibly,

The Hayabusa transitted via Buin/Shortlands et al and refueled ??

Thats how Marauders hit Rabaul from Townsville.

I also cant see where they "regularly" took place in action over Guadalcanal, and it doesnt state that they accompanied bomers to G/canal, just to Rabaul.

I would check this, and any of Sakai's claims, a lot closer before accepting them.

What are you smokin"?[:D]

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Possibly,

The Hayabusa transitted via Buin/Shortlands et al and refueled ??

Thats how Marauders hit Rabaul from Townsville.

I also cant see where they "regularly" took place in action over Guadalcanal, and it doesnt state that they accompanied bomers to G/canal, just to Rabaul.

I would check this, and any of Sakai's claims, a lot closer before accepting them.

What are you smokin"?[:D]

About what??

As the articles above do not claim the Hayabusa flew directly Rabaul/Gcanal/Rabaul, is it possible they staged through bases en route.

It did happen in the PNG area as the US Marauders regularly flew bombed up from Townsville to Pt Moresby to Rabaul and reverse. This way the heavier support could remain at the rearward bases.

Subaru Sakai has streched his credibility in a number of his claims, I would seek some more support of his stories

[el cid again]

I would check this, and any of Sakai's claims, a lot closer before accepting them.

I knew Sakai. I also know Sakaida. Anyone doubting the claims about the Zero is - I must be careful here - let me use positive phrasing:

there is almost nothing we know about foreign enemy technology better than we know the Zero - and there is absolutely no better source of information than Saburo Sakai - the claims of a certain book much in discussion just now notwithstanding. Sakai is one of those people who do not need honors. After a certain point there is no meaning to adding to the score. There is something combat veterans can recognize about a person who is not self-glorifying, willing to admit difficulties, mistakes, etc - a sort of honesty which is in a different league from that of distant, esoteric technical debates and doubts by academics, analysts, etc. I have become an analyst, but I began life in the field, and I remember the gulf between what was believed in the Pentagon, in the Press, in academia, and in the public and reality (which caused us to coin the phrase "real world" - meaning "the world as we eyewitnesses experienced vice the world you read about in Time magazine, official reports, and academic analysis"). Anyone who does not know that Sakai is not the sort of person who would misrepresent a material fact (except in confusion) - or that he was completely amazed to be honored by US Navy sailors and came to regard them as brothers - needs to be told these things. Debate about his verasity can only exist outside the context of this information. I won't even participate in it. And, for the record, we have flying Zeros which wholly verify its performance capabilities.

The Hayabusa Ki-43 was almost as great a technical surprise as the Zero was - and that is a plagerization of what Francillon wrote in Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. Francillon is not a Japanese, and sometimes is accused of understating Japanese aircraft data because of misunderstanding units of measure (which admittedly were complex).