Sweep Atitude (not a rant)

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Sweep Atitude (not a rant)

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Playing devils advocate.
If as some suggest that its the dive and not altitude in it self that matters. Unless all have the same max celling it wont matter any thing. Who ever have the highest service celling would if the above is correct come out on top any how. As they per default get the dive. Assuming u max ur altitude, just now ceiling altitude instead of max altitude. Sure it will force combats down, but if there is a difference in max service ceiling for the different planes and it indeed is the dive that gives the bonus. I dont see the suggestion making much of a difference.
Or rather the "endless" dives, which seems to be the norm if u ask Caster troy.[;)]

Kind regards,

Rasmus


yup, that´s my problem with all of it, it just happens toooo long being therefor tooooo strong in total. It´s not like it was mentioned that "you get the dive and your fighters take out two or three enemies during the dive", in my version it´s like "the higher one gets the dive for 80-90% of the engagement and shreds the other side"...

of course someone could now throw in that´s zoom and boom and it works perfectly, well, would be cool to see a real life Oscar to zoom and boom from 38,500ft on a P-47 at 15,000ft...
bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Sweep Atitude (not a rant)

Post by bklooste »

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Getting a little side tracked, from the works of Joe Baugher
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p39_5.html
AFDU Comments:
The Airacobra I was powered by an Allison V-1710-E4 twelve-cylinder V in-line engine rated at 1150 hp for takeoff. Weights were 5462 pounds empty and 7845 pounds normal gross. Maximum speeds were 326 mph at 6000 feet, 343 mph at 10,000 feet, 355 mph at 13, 000 feet, 341 mph at 20,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2040 feet per minute. With an internal fuel capacity of 100 Imp gal the Airacobra had an endurance of 1 hour 20 minutes at maximum continuous cruising speed at 6000 feet, 1 hour 5 minutes at 12,000 feet, and 1 hour 35 minutes at 20,000 feet. The true airspeeds at these altitudes were 287 mph, 327 mph, and 308 mph, respectively. Under most economical cruise conditions, the endurance increased to 3 hours 20 minutes, the relevant speeds being 183 mph at 6000 feet, 217 mph at 12,000 feet, and 215 mph at 20,000 feet. Under maximum continuous climb conditions, it took 15 minutes to reach 20,000 feet. The operational ceiling was considered to be about 24,000 feet, although there was a marked decrease in performance above 20,000 feet. At the Airacobra's rated altitude of 13,000 feet, it was 18 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. However, the speed fell off rapidly above that height, and the two planes were almost exactly matched at 15,000 feet. At 20,000 feet, the Spitfire VB was 35 mph faster and at 24,000 feet it was 55 mph faster. The ground run of the Airacobra during takeoff was 2250 feet, as compared with 1470 feet for the Hurricane II and 1590 feet for the Spitfire V.

BUT, is the "no oxygen" for the P400 a myth.
Could it be that lack of oxygen facilities meant that those of the Cactus Air Force flew without oxygen?
If the same aircraft flew out of Sydney, Pearl or San Francisco it would have oxygen and be capable of the altitudes mentioned above?

People have gone to Everest 26K with no O2.. so for shorter periods of time ...
Underdog Fanboy
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Sweep Atitude (not a rant)

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Getting a little side tracked, from the works of Joe Baugher
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p39_5.html
AFDU Comments:
The Airacobra I was powered by an Allison V-1710-E4 twelve-cylinder V in-line engine rated at 1150 hp for takeoff. Weights were 5462 pounds empty and 7845 pounds normal gross. Maximum speeds were 326 mph at 6000 feet, 343 mph at 10,000 feet, 355 mph at 13, 000 feet, 341 mph at 20,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2040 feet per minute. With an internal fuel capacity of 100 Imp gal the Airacobra had an endurance of 1 hour 20 minutes at maximum continuous cruising speed at 6000 feet, 1 hour 5 minutes at 12,000 feet, and 1 hour 35 minutes at 20,000 feet. The true airspeeds at these altitudes were 287 mph, 327 mph, and 308 mph, respectively. Under most economical cruise conditions, the endurance increased to 3 hours 20 minutes, the relevant speeds being 183 mph at 6000 feet, 217 mph at 12,000 feet, and 215 mph at 20,000 feet. Under maximum continuous climb conditions, it took 15 minutes to reach 20,000 feet. The operational ceiling was considered to be about 24,000 feet, although there was a marked decrease in performance above 20,000 feet. At the Airacobra's rated altitude of 13,000 feet, it was 18 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. However, the speed fell off rapidly above that height, and the two planes were almost exactly matched at 15,000 feet. At 20,000 feet, the Spitfire VB was 35 mph faster and at 24,000 feet it was 55 mph faster. The ground run of the Airacobra during takeoff was 2250 feet, as compared with 1470 feet for the Hurricane II and 1590 feet for the Spitfire V.

BUT, is the "no oxygen" for the P400 a myth.
Could it be that lack of oxygen facilities meant that those of the Cactus Air Force flew without oxygen?
If the same aircraft flew out of Sydney, Pearl or San Francisco it would have oxygen and be capable of the altitudes mentioned above?

People have gone to Everest 26K with no O2.. so for shorter periods of time ...


Not many! And those that do are pretty damn stupid in my book..[:D]

Besides, let them try hiking up to 29,000 feet and then have somebody shoot at them. I suspect you tend to breath just a little harder when that happens.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3872
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: Sweep Atitude (not a rant)

Post by vettim89 »

So just to summerize so far: the things that contributed to the lower PTO altitudes are

1. Targets were smaller and well hidden making them about impossible to see from high altitude
2. Most of the aircraft on both sides early in the war had inadequate superchargers for high altitude


Anything else? I was wondering if the shortage of AvGas might be a contributor. I have to believe it took a lot more fuel to get up to 30 k vs. 20 k

Edit to correct the big oops Alfred pointed out
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Sweep Atitude (not a rant)

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: vettim89

2. Most of the aircraft on both sides early in the war had inadequate superchargers for high altitude

Sorry vettim89, I think you meant INadequate.[;)]

Alfred
Dobey455
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:50 am

RE: Sweep Atitude (not a rant)

Post by Dobey455 »

Just to put the whole thing in context the average 8th Airforce raid was between 18,000' - 24,000' with a handful as high as 28,000. Thats the bomber height with escorts a few thousand feet above. The altitudes in game are generally WAY above what even an eighth AF pilot would ever see.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”