DC3's to Pearl

[m10bob]

Here is a strange site to find this comment, but he gives his sources, and claims to be a DC 3 pilot himself!

http://www.nitpickers.com/movies/nitpick.cgi?np=29721


"DC3s / C47s had extended range.
Comment Details Being a qualified pilot with a DC3 rating I have flown many converted C47s. Normally a C47 would have a range of 1,600 miles. Yet they were capable of flying up to 3,800 miles. You can read more about that on page 221 of "The DC-3, 50 years of legendary flight" by Peter M Bowers. In addition, it was very common in the Pacific theatre to fit C47s with internal tanks to extend range. I recall some maratime rated C47s and RD4s were capable of flying 14 hour patrols. Apart from anything. It's only common sense. How do you think the C47s got to Hawaii in the first place? They flew them out, just like they flew out the B17s. "


Maybe in future, DC 3 aircraft coming from stateside should arrive at Pearl?



Here are some going by baby flattop from Pearl to Saipan:(Googled)

[el cid again]

The problem is not transfer range - it is operational range. IF we set transfer range properly - transports are allowed to fly with full payload to 50% of what we set! The Forum concluded operational range has priority - so RHS sets transfer range 8% too low - to get operational range down to 42% of the original transfer range. To go the other way - install ferry tanks and increase the normal transfer range - would be misused by code - and you would probably be able to fly 2 or 3 times real operational ranges with useful loads.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem is not transfer range - it is operational range. IF we set transfer range properly - transports are allowed to fly with full payload to 50% of what we set! The Forum concluded operational range has priority - so RHS sets transfer range 8% too low - to get operational range down to 42% of the original transfer range. To go the other way - install ferry tanks and increase the normal transfer range - would be misused by code - and you would probably be able to fly 2 or 3 times real operational ranges with useful loads.

I understand. I also proposed a way to get around that might be to have the fresh unit "appear" at their forward element HQ, rather than the West Coast.(We can presume they flew with ferry tanks to Pearl, and divested themselves of said tanks at that point.)

[el cid again]

And that indeed works - just figured it out a couple of weeks ago - but it can be done.

[m10bob]

Your details in RHS transcend vanilla significantly.
If you did move DC 3 models into their theatre (instead of having them arrive at Frisco), would it be easier to do that, or maybe, just make a certain DC 3 "type" the 14 hour "maritime" version( as the pilot referred to it)..?
As this was apparently a historical possibility, and not a "fluke", I don't see how anybody would say this might be "misused" by the gamers, anymore than people might complain a P 40 is being used as a fighter..
BTW, I have never bought into the whole concept of chopping the legs off any kind of transport plane ranges..The Japanese especially need that capability.

Side note: If anybody wants to see the planetops of transport planes in action, just designate some of your planes to fly LRCAP over an enemy base..[8D]

[Buck Beach]

I would prefer your original idea of them showing up in Pearl as opposed to the theater. I like them needing to use the stepping stones to their ultimate destination. I also support the idea of the extended ranges for them.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Your details in RHS transcend vanilla significantly.
If you did move DC 3 models into their theatre (instead of having them arrive at Frisco), would it be easier to do that, or maybe, just make a certain DC 3 "type" the 14 hour "maritime" version( as the pilot referred to it)..?


REPLY: Probably the R4D is that type - and indeed it has more range. I think we have it already.

As this was apparently a historical possibility, and not a "fluke", I don't see how anybody would say this might be "misused" by the gamers, anymore than people might complain a P 40 is being used as a fighter..
BTW, I have never bought into the whole concept of chopping the legs off any kind of transport plane ranges..The Japanese especially need that capability.

REPLY: The problem is that code does the opposite: it gives transports too much range - and with too much cargo. The chopping was done by modders/OB guys - and possibly they knew what they were doing too if they understood code.
RHS does chop 8% from transport range - but that is from actual tansfer range - not stock or CHS data ranges. We still ended up with a lot more range in most cases.

Side note: If anybody wants to see the planetops of transport planes in action, just designate some of your planes to fly LRCAP over an enemy base..[8D]

REPLY: Qute.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I would prefer your original idea of them showing up in Pearl as opposed to the theater. I like them needing to use the stepping stones to their ultimate destination. I also support the idea of the extended ranges for them.

The problem is that in WITP ALL we get to define is extended range - and what players use is defined by code derived from that. Make extended range too big - operational range is too big. Worse- transports carry their full load to 50% of extended range. The Forum concluded operational ranges matter most - so that is what we did. The only reason our transports have more range is

a) We give you 4 engine transports not present before

b) We based our ranges on actual ferry range - and lots of game data set transports had much lower ranges

[Buck Beach]

Then on to Plan A having them show up in Pearl (my preference as a work around).

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Then on to Plan A having them show up in Pearl (my preference as a work around).

And Aden/Singapore/Karachi/South Atlantic/etc.....

[el cid again]

I don't have a big problem with that. But someone has to do the OB work. If it were done it would be incorporated a whole lot faster. [hint hint] I didn't do the LSTs - AKWarrior did. But I am putting in their dates (and missing numbers) as time permits - almost all are in now. I think he spent half a man year working it out. Something I didn't have time to do.

[m10bob]

DC 3's, LI 2's and the Tabby's..:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/w ... ugc47.html

[m10bob]

Just sent for the Irby book on DC 3's in this theatre..Hopefully it will shed light on where they need to come in.. I did find another good site but it offered no referances..