Ju 87 for RHS-EOS?

[Dili]

ETC 250 ETC 500 and ETC 1000 are the external bomb racks of JU 88 all of them interchangeable tough the 4x1000kg wasnt applicable since the maximum bomb load of A4 version was 3000kg so the comon one was 2x1000kg 2x500kg and i think(but not sure) the PC1000 or EC1000 bombs diameter was too much.
 
Where i  said 20x25kg? a clear case of just imagining things to suit your propose. I presented the 3 recommended configuration of internal load outs for A4 model(repetition of what i wrote above)
 
A:20x50kg (1000kg)
 
B&nbsp;10x50kg(500kg)+1220lit (322gal)&nbsp; <-most comon
&nbsp;
C:1220lit+680lit
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Maybe you should question how it was possible for JU-88&nbsp;to be&nbsp;restricted to 50kg bombs for normal load...
&nbsp;
Second Ju-88 tried to respond to many requests one of them was also to be a Stuka(albeit a not so step dive like Ju-87)&nbsp;so how to do that with internal bomb load?

[Dili]

The 20x50kg for configuration A&nbsp;i said above is incorrect it is 28x50kg.

[el cid again]

One possibility is that the Ju-88 had individual hard points stressed for 1000 kg - so a 1000 kg bomb could be carried - or someday in the future a 1000 kg air torpedo if one was developed. That does not change the maximum load for the A4 a whit - only 1000 kg could be carried externally - and 500 kg internally. But stressing the hard points at that level would mean it would be easier to carry a heavier load on later models - when more powerful engines were mounted - and meanwhile that even a 1000 kg weapon might be carried. Even so, the several loadouts listed for the A4 do NOT include ANY 1000 kg weapon at all of any sort: 2 x 500 kg being the most ever mounted externally - 4 x 250 kg also being possible. Both these cases represent (when combined with the 500 kg internal) a maximum bomb load - and we don't usually do a maximum bomb load in WITP. [Betty is a notable exception here: essentially its maximum bomb load is also its normal bomb load - and further it is an exception in a different sense: when the "bomb load" is a torpedo, it is technically external, although in fact it is aerodynamically almost internal - it is semi-recessed - and there are no bomb bay doors fitted at all. When it carries bombs, there are doors fitted.]

In spite of the fact that the normal range data is certainly given for the 500 kg load of the internal bomb bay, we could rate the aircraft for an external load and reduce the range accordingly. I would not favor using the full external load - but probably half of it. Thus a Ju-88A4 might carry 10 x 50 kg bombs internally and 2 x 250 kg bombs externally - and get exactly half of that at extended range (if I understand hard code). Even if we did that, it is no improvement in load over a Ki-49, nor even as well protected (the Ju-88 in early form has very little defensive firepower and the Ki-49 is armored).
It is probably also inferior in range with this loadout.

If we wanted a torpedo version of the aircraft, it would have to be a 1942 version (when the torpedo was available) - it would not be available until later in the war (the A4 is a 1940 version of the plane) - but it would also have a greater loadout. I don't know what that would be without looking it up - but it also does not matter if we say it includes a torpedo. That will always give us 1 torpedo (of 800 kg) or 3 x 250 kg bombs (normal range vs non naval target) or 2 x 250 kg bombs (extended range, all targets) - due to the wierd hard code torpedo routine. I see little point in such an aircraft in a theater where there are Betty's, Nells and Ki-67s (and in EOS family also the G7). However, a later Ju-88 might make sense if it did NOT have a torpedo - but say 1.2 metric tons of bomb load. It is probably slightly better armed in a later version as well - although not inspiringly so. But an aircraft's value is the sum of every thing - compared to cost: is a later Ju-88 worth considering? As an alternative to Ki-48 II.

For decades I have listed Ju-88s in several variants in games where players pick what they import (and roll dice to figure out how long it takes to get them producing). Never has any player ever elected to produce any bomber version for Japan (although sometimes people like a night fighter version, particularly for the JAAF). I carefully considered all the aircraft listed above - and a few others - when doing EOS - and rejected the Ju-88 as an inferior option for Japan by the time any particular version could reach PTO forces operational status. The ETO load/range combination - and the lack of powerful defensive armament - do not make it easy to see why one would prefer this aircraft.

Is there any other aircraft that might be worth adding? Or is there any interest in a pure bomber version of a later Ju-88?

[Dili]

Configuration A loadouts: maximum unitary weight 1 bomb of 1800kg; Max unitary symetrical 2x1400kg bombs; Max warload 3000kg (2xLMB + 2xLMA mines or 2x1000kg+2x500kg)

[Dili]

Configuration B

[Dili]

Configuration C

[el cid again]

Its a good thing ich kann lesen Deutsch (although I don't do the new spellings, these documents are traditional). But where are they from?

And does anyone want any change in aircraft? The Ju-87 seems not to be generating any more interest. There must be multiple indicators of interest or this review will end.

[m10bob]

JU 88? Maybe for WITP/M, but not the Pacific, thank you.

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

And does anyone want any change in aircraft? The Ju-87 seems not to be generating any more interest. There must be multiple indicators of interest or this review will end.

Well before you leave maybe there is still a chance of slipping in one German bomber? [:)]

It needs to be one that does something that the Japanese bombers of the time do not. What about the He 111 H? That carried 2*1000KG bombs on external racks. What I am thinking of is an early - sometime in '42/early '43 bomber that carries more than the Sally or Helen, even if over a shorter distance. That may make an interesting choice as in some areas (China, Burma etc.) range could be sacrificed for bomb load? Some of the mark H were also equiped with a Torpedo in late '41 [;)] The H itself was in production long before that.

For what it's worth my figures (from AL Kay & JR Smith's German Aircraft of the Second World War) says that the Ju 88 A4's maximum load was 4*500KG bombs. So it agrees with neither of you [:)]

I think there is a potential gap in the IJ arsenal for a early war bomber that carries more bombs a shorter distance. The Helen and Sally were not designed to carry more than 1000KG of bombs. But the German mediums by 1940 had the engines to carry a lot more than that and did. Whether it's a He 111 or a Ju 88, a bomber that has the stats of something like range c. 16 ferry / 5 Extended / 4 normal but carrying 2000KG of bombs - with maybe a Torpedo option if you are feeling generous - would have a roll. Nor would it replace the Sally / Helen. Usually that extra range would win the day.

I am still a bit confused Sid about what you will consider and what you will reject. I can understand you wanting a significant delay between the design operating in the ETO and getting to the PTO. And not considering designs that will just mirror, or perform worse, than their IJ contempories. After all why bother with them? And excluding late war designs that would make little impact on most games - slots are too precious.

But sometimes you start talking about the purchases of licences, plans and possible example parts. I don't doubt your information on when these occurred IRL is correct, nor that they would be needed for production. But IRL Japan did not build Ju 88s, or He 111s or Stukas etc. Nor did she seriously want to. But had she - which is what this thread is all about - surely she could have got them? She could have purchased the licences etc. for any and all these had she the desire, especially before the Germans turned east or before Japan entered the war. And she could surely have got the ones she did get earlier had she really wanted them. The UK blockade after the fall of France was not that tight in '40/'41 and I still think via Russia would have been a possibility, certainly in '40.

[Mifune]

Just to help shed a bit of light, I provide this excerpt which illuminates the relationship between the Germans and Japanese with technological exchange during the early war period. Starting with the purchase of some He-100 and the ending with the development of the Ki-61. "When the war opened in 1939 Heinkel was allowed to look for foreign licensees for the design. Japanese and Soviet delegations visited the Marienehe factory in late October, and were both impressed with what they saw. Thus it was in foreign hands that the 100 finally saw use, although only in terms of adopted design features.

The Soviets were particularly interested in the surface cooling system, and in order to gain experience with it they purchased the six surviving prototypes (V1, V2, V4, V5, V6 and V7). After arriving in the USSR they were passed onto the TsAGI institute for study; there they were analyzed with He 100 features influencing a number of Soviet designs, notably the LaGG-3 and MiG-1. Although the surface cooling system wasn't copied, the addition of larger Soviet engines made up for the difference and the LaGG-3 was a reasonably good performer. It's perhaps ironic that German aircraft would later be shot down by German inspired aircraft.

The Japanese were also looking for new designs, notably those using inline engines where they had little experience. They purchased the three D-0s for 1.2 million DM, as well as a license for production and a set of jigs for another 1.8 million DM. The three D-0s arrived in Japan in May 1940 and were re-assembled at Kasumigaura. They were then delivered to the Japanese Naval Air Force where they were re-named AXHei, for "Experimental Heinkel Fighter". When referring to the German design the aircraft is called both the He 100 and He 113, with at least one set of plans bearing the later name.

In tests the Navy was so impressed that they planned to put the aircraft into production as soon as possible as their land based interceptor — unlike every other forces in the world, the Army and Navy both fielded complete land based air forces. Hitachi won the contract for the aircraft and started construction of a factory in Chiba for its production. With the war in full swing in Europe however, the jigs and plans never arrived. Why this wasn't sorted out is something of a mystery, and it appears there isn't enough information in the common sources to say for sure what happened.

The DB 601 engine design was far more advanced than any indigenous Japanese design, which tended to concentrate on air cooled radials. To get a jump into the inline field, Kawasaki had already purchased the license for the 601A from Daimler Benz in 1938. The adoption process went smoothly, they adapted it to Japanese tooling and had it in production by late 1940 as the Ha-40.

At the same time Kawasaki was working on two parallel fighter efforts, the Ki-60 heavy fighter and the Ki-61. The former was abandoned after poor test results (the test pilots disliked the high wing loading) but work continued on the lightened Ki-61 with the Ha-40 engine. The Ki-61 was clearly influenced by the He 100.

Like the Ds, the Ki-61 lost the surface cooling system (although an early prototype may have included it), but is otherwise largely similar in design except for changes to the wing and vertical stabilizer. Since the Ki-61 was supposed to be lighter and offer better range than the Ki-60, the design had a longer and more tapered wing for better altitude performance. This also improved the handling and the aircraft was put into production. The Hien would prove to be the first of the Japanese aircraft that was truly equal to the contemporary US fighters."

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: el cid again

And does anyone want any change in aircraft? The Ju-87 seems not to be generating any more interest. There must be multiple indicators of interest or this review will end.

Well before you leave maybe there is still a chance of slipping in one German bomber? [:)]

As I tried to indicate above, there is a chance of slipping in two: a replacement for a Ki-48 II and a replacement for a Ki-45 II. There is also a chance of slipping in some other aircraft - probably fighter or night fighter - but I am not sure what it might replace? These "chances" are uniformly in EOS family - because the "strictly historical" BBO and CVO families focus more on the choices actually made. RHS has a very rich plane set compared to when we began - we added entire types of aircraft - including submarine bombers, heavy transports (to both sides), glider/tug combinations (to both sides),
ultra long range recon planes, dedicated ASW aircraft and Japanese army carrier aircraft. I will not be surprised if a review finds the set quite adequate as it is - but the review is serious. The main reason we won't is the planes available are not better choices. If they are - well then that is what we are looking for - for EOS family.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: el cid again

And does anyone want any change in aircraft? The Ju-87 seems not to be generating any more interest. There must be multiple indicators of interest or this review will end.

Well before you leave maybe there is still a chance of slipping in one German bomber? [:)]

It needs to be one that does something that the Japanese bombers of the time do not. What about the He 111 H? That carried 2*1000KG bombs on external racks. What I am thinking of is an early - sometime in '42/early '43 bomber that carries more than the Sally or Helen, even if over a shorter distance. That may make an interesting choice as in some areas (China, Burma etc.) range could be sacrificed for bomb load? Some of the mark H were also equiped with a Torpedo in late '41 [;)] The H itself was in production long before that.

The He-111 is an option. [So is the Ju-86] Not as a torpedo plane - because that de facto reduces the loadout to 3 x 250 kg bombs (hard code) for land targets (and only 2 at extended range). But as a heavy bomber. Ultimately, this is the role fulfilled by G5N2 right now. Further - as a 4 engine aircraft - G5 is inherantly more survivable than any 2 engine aircraft - although a 2 engine plane will be cheaper to produce so you will get more of them. This aircraft made my list above of planes people could/should think in terms of. I have looked at it hard before - and ultimately concluded it does not have quite enough attributes to be considered superior. But we can look at it again if there is real interest. It is very close to what is required/desired - although not as a dive bomber.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: el cid again

For what it's worth my figures (from AL Kay & JR Smith's German Aircraft of the Second World War) says that the Ju 88 A4's maximum load was 4*500KG bombs. So it agrees with neither of you [:)]

This is quite normal. There are lots of ways to get information on aircraft. Almost all references truncate the data for reasons of space - so you get only selected data. And the authors may be using design specs, manufacturers specs, users operating materials, test results, or other information. Over time the very same aircraft may evolve how it is used - see the F4U thought unsuitable for carrier operations later used in exactly that mode. The REASON Joe Wilkerson advocated a COMMON standard (or set of standards) is so that we would have authors using the same criterion for the data. DIFFERENT sources are inferior for our purpose for a common aircraft found in the standard references - because it is probable the different sources don't use the same standards. For common types, it is also more important to have data that is rated to the same standard - since common aircraft are likely to be used in numbers in the game. So I agreed with the CHS dictim in this matter - and have strictly honored it ever since RHS diverged. We pretty much use the very same standard materials - except we just added the Gunston book - because it had more ROC data. It makes some fanboys upset their favorite does not get some special boost- but it is better practice to adopt standards and honor them than to collect a diverse set of sources. We end up doing some of that - because we have no choice for planes not present in the standard references - but when we can - we should avoid that. No matter who is upset, we build credibility for the data set and our methods by insisting on this even handed approach. When the unusual source also seems to make no engineering sense - one should be doubly reluctant to make an exception.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I think there is a potential gap in the IJ arsenal for a early war bomber that carries more bombs a shorter distance. The Helen and Sally were not designed to carry more than 1000KG of bombs. But the German mediums by 1940 had the engines to carry a lot more than that and did. Whether it's a He 111 or a Ju 88, a bomber that has the stats of something like range c. 16 ferry / 5 Extended / 4 normal but carrying 2000KG of bombs - with maybe a Torpedo option if you are feeling generous - would have a roll. Nor would it replace the Sally / Helen. Usually that extra range would win the day.

You are quite correct that such a gap exists. However, it may be necessary: Japan could not build bigger engines soon enough - and to the extent it could - it would not change the plant capacity. That is, you would end up with fewer aircraft with the bigger engines IRL (although not in our primitive game production system). But it may well be better modeling NOT to let Japan have big engines too soon. RHS HAS this built in - the engines are power rated - and the three more powerful types won't appear early in the war.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum


I am still a bit confused Sid about what you will consider and what you will reject. I can understand you wanting a significant delay between the design operating in the ETO and getting to the PTO. And not considering designs that will just mirror, or perform worse, than their IJ contempories. After all why bother with them? And excluding late war designs that would make little impact on most games - slots are too precious.

But sometimes you start talking about the purchases of licences, plans and possible example parts. I don't doubt your information on when these occurred IRL is correct, nor that they would be needed for production. But IRL Japan did not build Ju 88s, or He 111s or Stukas etc. Nor did she seriously want to. But had she - which is what this thread is all about - surely she could have got them? She could have purchased the licences etc. for any and all these had she the desire, especially before the Germans turned east or before Japan entered the war. And she could surely have got the ones she did get earlier had she really wanted them. The UK blockade after the fall of France was not that tight in '40/'41 and I still think via Russia would have been a possibility, certainly in '40.

Well - you seem to be very close to understanding my thinking. The talk about licences, plans, jigs (the things from which wierd shapes are built from), samples, is simply trying to help you understand the calculus I use to figure out the delays. I know a great deal about these matters - and I also know exactly what licences existed, what sample aircraft or engines were in Japan, what companies had production engineers in Japan - etc. In fact, there was serious consideration given to a number of aircraft - not all considered here - and there were comparitive trials when aircraft existed in Japan. There was also politics - and this was more often than not a problem: Germany might not want to export a design as soon as would be needed to matter in Japan (that changed later in the war); Japan might not want to give a contract to Hitachi even for a superior product (which meant He type designs were not as likely to make the cut) in spite of the presence of its senior designer for years in Japan - in favor of a design advocated by the better connected Mitsubishi - or even Nakajima (which was not as well connected, but still better than Hitachi). But the biggest problem is that an aircraft designed in Germany cannot be produced in Japan (or anywhere else) until the vast amount of data gets to Japan - and is also converted to a form the Japanese can read (Japanese don't read German, and don't use German production techniques). This is not always a problem - see the Me-109 for example - it is already in Japan, there is a Messerschmdt engineering team in Japan, there is a licence and plans and a lot of other required pieces of the puzzel. But for any aircraft not in Japan by the time the sea lanes are cut by WWII - there is a big time problem. Thus the FW-200 in its maritime recon/bomber mode was paid for by Japan - but the information required to produce it NEVER DID reach Japan at all. The serious interest in the aircraft came to no avail because they NEVER got what they needed to produce it. If I had my way - players could TRY for a German design - but might not get it (die roll). That is what I do in games with more complex rules. So your final observations are simply incorrect: Japan did not get a licence for everything it wanted, or not when it wanted that licence; Japan did not always get the plane plans/other stuff even when it was sent to Japan: sometimes the attempt was wholly impractical and never even tried (Fw-200) - sometimes the shipment was lost en route (Me-262). In another life (I have a life outside WITP) I have done extensive work with authors on Axis technology, and we have extensive information from MAGIC intercepts and other materials about the Yanagi Operations (transport between Germany and Japan) - to the extent I know almost all the details of every attempt, successful or not. The connection was tenuous at best, and the larger the aircraft, the less easy it was to solve the problem. The air routes never did succeed until the Ju-290 was able to attempt them - and Japan itself was very upset when 3 made the crossing (fearing Soviet reaction). This was a very very marginal LOC - the planes had to carry almost nothing - only 2 passengers and a few documents - otherwise they were overloaded with fuel. Surface ships didn't make it at all after PTO erupted into war. Only a few submarines made the attempt - and half perished going one way or the other. Since I cannot simulate this by a die role here - I require two different attempts - so we are still using the real statistic (50% make it) to generate the time delay. It is a simple but reasonable compromise.

There is an interesting story which we have from two different ends - each confirming the other - to help you understand the German attitudes. The story involves two brothers - on a chemist in Japan - the other a technical diplomat in Berlin. The one brother wants some of the high grade Uranium ore the Germans got from the Belgians (well - sort of - they took a little - we recovered the vast majority of it in the Union Minere warehouse - unguarded - in 1945). The richest Uranium mine in the world was (and remains) at Shinklobwe - Congo - although it closed in 1938 and only reopened a couple of years ago (if you believe German miners in Congo - which I do - for North Korea). There was about 2200 tons of ore at 42% Uranium content - while the very richest ore from any other source is only 2% - and useful ore can be 0.2% uranium. Union mines sent 1000 metric tons to both New York and Belgium in 1938 - to insure an atomic power race it could profit from (and it worked). Anyway - Japan considered raiding the mine - and the US actually did send three ships to get the "tailings" in 1942 - still 26% uranium - and there are tens of thousands of tons of them. But Japan wanted some of that rich 42% ore - and asked for it. The brother in Japan - a chemist - suggested a cover story - that it was to be a catalyst in the making of synthetic fuel. This was adopted. The Germans refused the request. The brother in Germany lost his temper - and he also seems to have known things he should not have been privy too - so without authorization he disclosed that the cover story was a lie, also what the real purpose of the uranium was, and got the Reichsminister to actually approve the shipment because he could find no reason not to want Japan to hurt the US with atom bombs. We know the German end of the story by MAGIC decrypts of reports sent by the Japanese ambassador to Germany [See Hitler's Japanese Confidant, a formal academic history] and we know the Chemist's story because he told it to Manhattan project interrogators after the war ended. But it does show that cooperation was not automatic by any means.

[el cid again]

A plane that may fit the bill for a heavy bomber - officially it was regarded as a heavy bomber by Germany - is the Do-217. This aircraft carries a remarkable bomb load - and can even carry the 4000 pound bomb (3968 lb IRL). Most of its 8,000 pound capacity (5,550 pounds) is internal. The plane is licencable from before the war and entered German service in spring 1941. The E-3 version added armor and more guns - including a 20mm. Range in RHS terms is 32 hexes = extended range of 10 and normal range of 8. The standard loadout was 8 x 250 kg bombs - so you would get 4 x 250s at extended range. Not bad at all. This aircraft could enter service about the same time as the Ki-49I and could replace that slot. The only problem may be engines: I need to check their power. Nope. They are in the same class as the Ki-21 II engines - and might even be able to take a Japanese engine.

[Dili]

although I don't do the new spellings

&nbsp;
It is very easy to read. Follow the numbers and indications and the numbers in drawing vs 1-16 in vertical list, M' numbers in Horizontal listing. JU-88 A4 Max weapon load was 3000kg. You even have the weight of MG amno, safety boat, crew beside the diverse weapons load and fuel weights.
&nbsp;

No matter who is upset, we build credibility for the data set and our methods by insisting on this even handed approach.

&nbsp;
Well thank you, for the lack of factual arguments what you resort is to justifying&nbsp; abismal errors&nbsp;to a&nbsp;one source "advantage".
Your claim to "even handed" is not factual. You imply it is just because it came from same person. That not establish "even handed".
Plus when "even handed" source&nbsp;have crucial errors, &nbsp;lacks&nbsp;important details like loadouts&nbsp;you seem to be happy with that. For someone that claims Real Historical Scenario tag that is a paradox.
The fact that you seek the first confortable position and sit there is understandable for the shear size of your work but it is erronous.
If the requests of&nbsp;Luftwaffe for speedbomber would have freezed in mid 1935 you were right. But they didnt. They put dive breaks, they got more engine power, the plane was better than they expected and the military requests changed&nbsp;in part to post&nbsp;Spanish Civil&nbsp;War&nbsp;studies and well resources and comon sense&nbsp;having&nbsp; bombers with only 50kg bombs as normal load doesnt make sense from any point of view.
The fact&nbsp;that Ju-88&nbsp;had only 50kg or less sized&nbsp;bombs in internal bomb bay(no 100kg 250kg or 500kg sized)&nbsp;didnt triggered a warning sign to you is strange. Do you think Ju 88 the most important German bomber attacked most targets with 50kg bombs?

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Dili

although I don't do the new spellings

It is very easy to read. Follow the numbers and indications and the numbers in drawing vs 1-16 in vertical list, M' numbers in Horizontal listing. JU-88 A4 Max weapon load was 3000kg. You even have the weight of MG amno, safety boat, crew beside the diverse weapons load and fuel weights.

No matter who is upset, we build credibility for the data set and our methods by insisting on this even handed approach.

Well thank you, for the lack of factual arguments what you resort is to justifying  abismal errors to a one source "advantage".
Your claim to "even handed" is not factual. You imply it is just because it came from same person. That not establish "even handed".
Plus when "even handed" source have crucial errors,  lacks important details like loadouts you seem to be happy with that. For someone that claims Real Historical Scenario tag that is a paradox.
The fact that you seek the first confortable position and sit there is understandable for the shear size of your work but it is erronous.
If the requests of Luftwaffe for speedbomber would have freezed in mid 1935 you were right. But they didnt. They put dive breaks, they got more engine power, the plane was better than they expected and the military requests changed in part to post Spanish Civil War studies and well resources and comon sense having  bombers with only 50kg bombs as normal load doesnt make sense from any point of view.
The fact that Ju-88 had only 50kg or less sized bombs in internal bomb bay(no 100kg 250kg or 500kg sized) didnt triggered a warning sign to you is strange. Do you think Ju 88 the most important German bomber attacked most targets with 50kg bombs?

Maybe it would have been easier for Sid to have just said "no".[&:]

Sid has tried to use a uniform set of aircraft referances, readily available to all of us, which give comparison of one plane to another using the same formulae of comparison.
No doubt a few of the planes' referances may be wrong in some area, but since the referances being used are the ones recognised pretty much aviation/military wide, it follows that one plane or another may not be recognised or represented by the most accurate figures.
My personal feeling is that for all the work Sid has put into this project, you seem hell-bent to cause a lot of grief over a plane which was not even used in theatre.
Why not not just dig up some specs on the Mig 9 ?
Maybe had the war lasted long enough, surely the Japanese might have obtained some of them?
Maybe with their keen knowlege, they might have turned the B 29 into the B 50?

Lets' keep it civil.

[Dili]

No doubt a few of the planes' referances may be wrong in some area, but since the referances being used are the ones recognised pretty much aviation/military wide, it follows that one plane or another may not be recognised or represented by the most accurate figures.

&nbsp;
That is false, many places have the data&nbsp;mostly correct&nbsp;. While i came up with more data that&nbsp;was&nbsp;to dispute the&nbsp;judgement of Cid of Ju-88 as the speedbomber with 500kg(10x50kg) as normal loadout and his interpretation that 1000kg was 4x250kg to mean that plane could not take 1000kg bombs.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Of course when i try to find data i sometimes dont&nbsp;only find what i wanted. I found more and i think it would idiotic to just hide what i have found.
But certainly information upsets.
&nbsp;

Why not not just dig up some specs on the Mig 9 ?

&nbsp;
Certainly if i would know that Mig-9 was being turned in almost an&nbsp;half plane i would do the same.&nbsp;
And that&nbsp;is the crucial &nbsp;issue here .&nbsp;The disagreement is this way because the diferences of performance claimed are step. It is not 500kg vs 450kg
&nbsp;

&nbsp;My personal feeling is that for all the work Sid has put into this project, you seem hell-bent to cause a lot of grief over a plane which was not even used in theatre.

&nbsp;
Well&nbsp;that was the fact that in part&nbsp;made me dig that data...If someone claims "Real Historical" it is by default open to be challenged in that department.

[Buck Beach]

Why don't you just do your own mod and then maybe you'll be happy and less up tight?

Have a good day.