Ju 87 for RHS-EOS?

[Dili]

However, there is no reason in principle one cannot mount two x 250s on a single hard point

 
Space, realism, German racks couldnt get 2. In the  end it is the same. I would say that if the Ju-88 goes for IJAAF they would probably prefer a mixed load. 
 

 It is far better to use the ACTUAL range of a Ki-48 than to ESTIMATE range for it based on a Blenheim

.
 
Your range  is based in Francillon (from what you have said) lacking detail not from a Ki-48 monograph.
You and i we both used that reasoning at start of this thread when Historiker came with mostly best case ranges/loadout mixing best performances a frequent problem . Sometimes i see a 3000kg bombload and 3000km range for Ju-88 same happens for other planes which is false. If we dont know detailed data about Range vs Loads which usually can only be got from monographs it is not actual. If it makes our plane a wonder plane then it is suspicious at least.

[Historiker]

I vote for a mixed load of 2x500kg and 4x250kg!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

However, there is no reason in principle one cannot mount two x 250s on a single hard point

Space, realism, German racks couldnt get 2. In the  end it is the same. I would say that if the Ju-88 goes for IJAAF they would probably prefer a mixed load. 

 It is far better to use the ACTUAL range of a Ki-48 than to ESTIMATE range for it based on a Blenheim

.

Your range  is based in Francillon (from what you have said) lacking detail not from a Ki-48 monograph.
You and i we both used that reasoning at start of this thread when Historiker came with mostly best case ranges/loadout mixing best performances a frequent problem . Sometimes i see a 3000kg bombload and 3000km range for Ju-88 same happens for other planes which is false. If we dont know detailed data about Range vs Loads which usually can only be got from monographs it is not actual. If it makes our plane a wonder plane then it is suspicious at least.

But Ki-48 uniformly reports the same range - no matter where we look. I will, however, reexamine this briefly. Also, remember RHS bomber transfer ranges are 9% exaggerated - because of a hard code issue - so the operational ranges with bombs will be correct. [So are flying boats and recon planes; fighters are not exaggerated because code is set right for them; transports are 8% reduced because of peculiar code situation: I gave the Forum a choice and the consensus (maybe even unanimous consensus) was that operational ranges should be right vice transfer ranges]

IF Francillon is the standard, the range should be (as reported above) 27 hexes AFTER being exaggerated 9%. It is 32 hexes. So the RHS range is too great (for the II EDIT BOTH models) - and it will be corrected from x.7866 or 7.787.

That means the Ju-88 as a two engine dive bomber both carries more bombs and has more range - and I think it is better armed (although not by very much). This combines with votes above (only one negative) to imply we should replace the Ki-48 II with the Ju-88A5 in EOS family scenarios (probably A4 in EEO using the same art).

I am also going to look at the Ju-88C night fighter - not quite so early.

We need new filmstrips for EEO family art - I have three Allied changes and potentially two Axis ones - and Cobra is apparently not up for art.

[Dili]

Well Ju-88 is a plane with more than double( 13760kg Vs 6700kg) Max take off weight of Ki-48 so it is not a surprise that is better. It's a pitty the game sees supply spent by engine number and not by weight, makes tiny 2 engine planes without reason to exist. Yes Ju 88 is not much better armed a problem comon to almost all axis bombers.
 
If you want data on C i can give it to you. C started as fighterbomber/nightfighter without radar and later went to a purely nightfighter mission.

[el cid again]

I want dates of actual production beginning for A5, A4, and C whatever is serial produced. C seems almost not produced early. One squadron, 24 machines on strength long after production begins - because bombers have priority. C2 maybe?
When did C get accepted for actual production?

I also have widely (about 100%) different figures for Initial ROC for C - what do you have?

[el cid again]

I got my answers. We can use the Ju-88A4 - and it can be in production in Japan when the war begins for EEO - because the process of getting it there begins soon enough. In EOS and AIO, the process only begins in 7/41, and it requires 15 months = 10/42 - six months later than the Ki-48 II.

If we want radar for the Ju-88C we must wait until 2/42. The aircraft and engines can have begun the 15 month process of transfer/work up before that, so the radar transfer/work up time is the defining part: about 8 months = 10/42 - exactly one year before the J1N1-S would be available.

[Dili]

C-0 first flight Jully 1939 as an heavy fighter.  some A1 converted to C-0  2x20mm MGFF and 2x7.9mm forward firing. Since the other C's had defensive weapons  i speculate they had too. retained the rear bomb bay capability for 10x500kg; Crew: 3 max; speed 312mph at 13000ft, range 1800miles. They were employed in Polish campaign mostly for ground attack.

C1;C3 and C5 all had to get the BMW engine that was also for FW 190 for that reason only a few were made.

C-2 converted A1 bombers  130 conversions made between 1940-1941. Operational in Summer 40. 1x20mm MG FF 3x7.9mm ; 1x7.9mm MG15 reward firing. it is also in mid late 40 that due to British bombing missions against Germany C models start to be used as night fighters and night intruder.

C-4- First C original and not converted, Prod starts 1941 . Bigger wings of A4 model and no Bomb bay, increased armor. Since the tactics at time didnt requested long range so Me-110 could be used in night fighting only 65 were made in 1941 and not all went to night fighting squadrons.

C6 appears at end of 41, it had 3x 20mm MG FF and 3x 7.9mm MG 17 forward. It was possible to have one reward firing up and another reward below but most crews didnt instaled them to slash some weight. Engine Jumo 211J. 6a was day fighter 6b was night figther( that arrived later) se below: 
In Feb 42 some Fug 202 BC radars(first test in mid 41) went to some Ju-88 C's of squadron NJG 1. The equipement was not enough perfected and gave so much troubles that only in Oct 42 after fixings went to other units and now as production name Fug-212-C1 . The equipement reduced max speed by 5mph.
257 Ju-88C6a(no radar) and b(with radar)  were build in 1942.

R1 appears once again with BMW engine in 43  apparently  more engine factories at work, but the C is the principal production.
In 1943 706 C and R models were made.
Rs are identical to C6 in weapons/radar.

One R landed in England. The RAF review said:
Radar at MK IV AI level and with better precison(narrower beam)
More pleasant to fly than Beaufighter,slight more speed and better navigational equipement but less agility crucial to point weapons at last minute in the night, blocked views and cramped layout(the 20mm canons had to be resupplied from cockpit.) made it less efficent as a night fighter at 11000-14000ft.

Many C-6 in 43 appear with reinforced armament: Schrage Musik system  2x 20mm mG 151 canons in dorsal positions for oblique firing against belly of bombers.

End of 43 appears the better Fug-220 SN-2 radar. At first this Radar had bigger low range which was a problem so it was added over the existing one increasing weight. But it eventually got fixed.

C6a/C6b/C6c with Shrage Musik
Max speed  500kph/480kph at 20000ft/490kph

Cruising ?/ /445kph;423kph Economic cruise

Empty Weight  8100kg/8600kg/9070kg
Fuel Weight / /3200(Lit)
Max Weight   11450kg/12485kg/12360kg

Engines J-0 or 1 1340hp/ J-1 1410hp/1410hp J(-2  ?)

Wing Area 54.50m2

Initial climb ? / 448m/min /590m/min other source 539,5m/min

Time to 6000m / /12,7min

Ceiling 8800m/9900m/9900m

Range 2950km/3137km maximum range, +2000km with full loadout/ 1980km w/3200lit fuel.

C6c:

(MG 17) 7.9mm 3 (2800 rounds) 
(MG 131) 13mm 1 (750 rd) (rear firing up)
(MG.FF) 20mm 3 (360 rd ,120 each)  The Nose MG.FF the one not in gondola could be replaced by a MG 151 w/350 rounds.
Schraege Musik (MG.151) 20 mm 2 (400 rd)

Research is going on. More data soon.

UPDATE:

2 of 3 MG FF are in bomber gondola. As such the below reward MG in gondola are not installed when there is the canons.

Contraditory Info:

Squadron Signal states contrary to other soures it is still possible to have bomb racks. Anyway all peformance available is without them and without external stores.

[el cid again]

We can use one item of this material - I figured out already we might as well wait for C6 because of radar availability -
and that is any unit appearing new with the Ju-88C6 after the right date can have the alternate 20mm guns in its unit loadout. This due to the RHS practice of alternate loadouts - which works well (except for drop tanks - which ALWAYS use the aircraft definition) - but which ONLY applies to original equipment of a unit. We should tell players these units with a suffex in their name (SM??? For Schrage Musik?) We can similarly upgrade the radar (never thought of that before) as an alternate loadout.

[el cid again]

Ju-87C6 night fighter data:


Max speed 307 mph/ cruise speed 279 mph/ endurance 155 plus 220 minutes = 375 minutes. (the plus due to a tank)

Maneuverability 8 Durability 20

[Maneuverability due to great increase in weight for equipment - weapons and radar]

Offensive armament (for night intruder role only): 10 x 50 kg bombs internal (all in the aft bay - the forward one is sealed up and has a tank in it for fuel)

Guns: 3 x 20 mm cannon plus 3 x 7.92 mm MG forward and 1 x 7.92 mm MG top rear

RHS Operational Ceiling: 29232 feet (RHS does not permit operations to full service ceiling - and the fraction you get is a function of engine type)

Maxload = 2204

[Historiker]

What about a long range fighter in late 43-45?
It was a kind of shock for me to see, that i.e. the Vengeance has a range of 12/16 and the P47D  carrys an enormous bombload together with a good range. In CHS and in Stock, allied DB and TB are limited to 5 hexes - I guess because of balancing.
When I look into the DB, I see nothing but the Ki-43 II later in the war with a acceptable range to escort ships at sea against such beasts. But the Ki-43 II isn't a good fighter and is armement is a joke, especially against armoured bigger planes.
Is there a possibility to get a long range escort fighter for ships in the later phases of the game?

Perhaps a prototype never introduced or a german or italien model?
Germany:
Ar 240 <--- A most impressive model: 670-700km/h, range 2100km, (wihtout droptanks?, 6MG 151)

[Dili]

Maneuverability 8 Durability 20

[Maneuverability due to great increase in weight for equipment - weapons and radar]

&nbsp;
I dont think that is right. Unless you take the bombers weight in clean state which in that case i think it is a wrong way to calculate maneuverality. The Max load of Night fighter is arond 12t less than almost 14t of Bomber.&nbsp; Since the Bomber already has 4MGs one of them at least heavier lets make it a zero advantage concerning MG's . So the added weight are 3x MGFF canons(31kg each) &nbsp;and the Radar(Less than&nbsp;100kg).&nbsp;I think the added weight is not more than 200kg in clean condition and probable less due to bomb racks, dive brakes of the bomber but i suspect that is offset by the armor it got around cockpit=maybe increased durability?. The loaded for Fighter is only 3x120rds of 20mm, the Fuel and 3 crew. Plus the 4000rds of MG amno but that is necessary also for Bomber version.

[el cid again]

Yes - you have it: and perhaps I should have said "empty weight". It is significantly higher for the C - which has the forward bomb bay rendered useless as such - and a perminant tank installed there - no less than six weapons face forward - half of them cannon (which the bomber wholly lacks) - and lots of ammunition to feed them - and radar - which is worse than just heavy - it has lots of drag for its antenna. The empty weight is several tons larger. Loaded weight isn't so bad - but you cannot dump that "extra" empty weight like you dump bombs. It is always with you.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

What about a long range fighter in late 43-45?
It was a kind of shock for me to see, that i.e. the Vengeance has a range of 12/16 and the P47D  carrys an enormous bombload together with a good range. In CHS and in Stock, allied DB and TB are limited to 5 hexes - I guess because of balancing.
When I look into the DB, I see nothing but the Ki-43 II later in the war with a acceptable range to escort ships at sea against such beasts. But the Ki-43 II isn't a good fighter and is armement is a joke, especially against armoured bigger planes.
Is there a possibility to get a long range escort fighter for ships in the later phases of the game?

Perhaps a prototype never introduced or a german or italien model?
Germany:
Ar 240 <--- A most impressive model: 670-700km/h, range 2100km, (wihtout droptanks?, 6MG 151)

Actually - there are fine long range fighters. Attention was paid to this in the plane set. See air units with the suffex [ESCT] for options. There are nice long range fighters - single and two engine - carrier and land based - depending on your requirement - in the set. But it is true that ranges generally decrease as the war goes on - there is nothing quite like the A6M2 or the G4M1 for range! They did that by deliberately leaving out armor - not a mistake as in US or ETO designs - but Yamamoto did it on purpose (when he headed JNAF aircraft development). Note, however, the G7 bomber - not bad on range that.

Nor do I want to "fix" this problem to the extent it exists: the POINT is you use what you have available. That determines the character of the war. Build what you want - of the choices available. They do include escort fighters - and nice bombers. Now you have a Ju-88 dive bomber - be content with it. Note the Japanese night fighter is a carrier plane with amazing range too. Night fighters are fighters vs bombers too.

[Dili]

The empty weight is several tons larger

&nbsp;
That is false. The empty weight of Ju-88A4 bomber is around 8,5t(8.4t to 8.7t)&nbsp;&nbsp; the empty weight of C6c with Shrage Musik and more reinforcement/armor&nbsp;is 9,0t. For 6b is 8,6t, for 6a without radar is 8t. &nbsp;For the bomber you still have to add the extra crewmen as things you&nbsp;cannot dump.
&nbsp;

no less than six weapons face forward - half of them cannon (which the bomber wholly lacks)&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;
3 canons that weight 31kg each. No bomb racks. No dive brakes. No extra crewman. 4 machine guns like the bomber.
&nbsp;

and radar - which is worse than just heavy - it has lots of drag for its antenna.

&nbsp;
How do you explain that the fighter is faster than the bomber&nbsp;with the same engine?
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
If you rate bomber manuverality with the plane empty that is unfair, also the equipement you choosed it had at most 100kg more than the bomber empty.

[el cid again]

Actually - we rate all aircraft both empty and loaded. One loading factor is done vs Empty Equipped Weight. The other one vs Maximum Weight. There are reasons that both matter - at different times. [A plane is not always at maximum load - nor is it true that a plane is never at maximum load - so you cannot ignore it either] I think the speed is related to the horrible effects of the external major bomb load - and the racks to permit it even if empty. Ju-88 is almost a modern twin engine fighter-bomber in some senses. And with radar, a modern all weather fighter-bomber. A bomber acting as a night fighter should be faster than it is in bomber form. The more so the better.

[Dili]

The night fighter has a diferent streamlined&nbsp;nose profile.

[Historiker]

When you give a usual fighter radar, will it have a lower efficiency in night-CAP than a nightfighter? Usual fighters can fly CAP over TFs, NFs can't, so changing this would enable NFs to provide LR-CAP over TFs which are out of usual fighters range.

[el cid again]

There is a big problem with early radar - it is big! [pun intended] So big the US solution was to put it on two different planes! [That is why the ultimate system involved torpedo bombers - with transmitters - and fighters - with recievers. The torpedo bombers also could intercept with their own reciever.] Putting a good radar on a "usual fighter" isn't practical - it is too heavy - and it will probably also have antenna degradation of performance enough to matter in the dayfighter role. In my view it is wrong to give a usual fighter radar - it could not carry it - and it did not carry it - so it isn't simulation: it is a step down the road to a superman counter. Why not just make a plane called F-4 or F-22? Once we go into fiction - well where do you draw the line?

The idea is not to solve every theoretical problem - even those that could not be solved. It is to give players assets - and let them manage - in spite of not having every theoretically nice thing.

The answer to the question is probably "no - it will work perfectly well as a night fighter" - within the context of its weapons. A night fighter with UP guns probably works better - but if that is the case - you may say "why not put up guns on regular fighter?" and - presto - superplane.

[Dili]

<100kg for a Radar is not much for a 2 engine bomber neither for mid-late war fighters.

[Historiker]

Perhaps it's the cultural difference, but where I come from, this wouldn't be an adequate answer to a "normal" question. Far from it, we in Germany consider this as an insult:

Why not just make a plane called F-4 or F-22? Once we go into fiction - well where do you draw the line?

Did I ask to do something fictional? Did I ask to put some non existant planes into the game or to boost some ACdata without any realistic background?

Nightfighters were used in daytime missions as well as vice versa! I.e. the Luftwaffe used Me 110 NF in the early times of the bomb offensive against 4e as they had such an enourmus arement. On the other hand, there were the "Wilde Sau" missions.

In witp, NF can't do the same missions as usual fighters.

When I am the Japanese commander and see a lack of long range escorts for ships - which exist - I would look at the existing planes and think which ones would be the best compromise for that missions.

In EOS, the Ju-88 is added. It has a good range and (can be equipped with) heavy armement. It would be quite usual descicion to use this plane for LR-CAP, too - when there's no alternative.

Is this idea such outrageous, that you need to answer so impolite?



Something different:
Do FB/F and DB have the same accuracy while bombing? I mean when they have the same data and XP. If yes, wouldn't it be possible to design the new Ju 88 as FB than as DB?