Airplanes

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: sandman455
So ingenious, wish I had thought of it. [:)]
Looking forward to seeing your final results.

Thanks. It was literally a Homer Simpson moment. There I was, working on bands anyway and … D’oh !! JWE no function beer well without.

Japan has some planes that are extremely maneuverable up to 15k, highly maneuverable to 20k, moderate/good maneuverability to 30k. Most gasp for air above that. It would seem that the earlier Japanese two stage superchargers had a lowblo critalt of between 6 and 10000 and a highblo critalt of between 15 and 17000. The later engines and superchargers had a lowblo critalt around 10000 and highblo critalt around 20000. Some ‘high altitude’ interceptors had tweaked superchargers that could maintain ‘rated’ power (but a skoosh less than the ‘normal’ engine) up to 25000.

Similarly, US planes have good maneuverability all the way to 20k, and the later ones have exactly the same range of moderate/good maneuver as many Japanese in the 20-30k band. The early US engines had a lowblo critalt around 10000 and a highblo critalt around 15-18000 (ct, P-39/40). Later US engines had nominal highblo critalts of around 25000. Although US plane weights were considerably higher than their Japanese counterparts, their compensatory nominal engine power output was higher as well, especially at the higher altitudes.

Comparative numerics are working great. At moderate altitudes, the Japanese are seriously competitive, although they do break more easily. From 20k to 30k, things look a bit more equalized; the speed function is rearing its head, so some of the “speed” tweaks we made will have ‘some’ IJ planes be competitive in this regime as well. Think comparative performance at altitude is pretty well done.

The witch, of course, is what happens at the ‘beyond critalt’ altitudes. Ok, so there really is a model for this, for ‘mechanically’ supercharged engines: Normal power fall-off after CritAlt as a function of density (hemi, demi, semi, inverse square) going to the 100 fpm ‘service’ altitude. This power plot is then used to obtain the ‘practical’ ceilings for various planes. For fighters, etc.. it is what is generally considered the ‘combat’ ceiling – around the 750-1000 fpm limit. For ‘interceptors, it’s around the 250-500 fpm limit. And it works: It is a beautiful thing.

It works perfectly with planes having turbo-superchargers. Very Hi Alt maneuver, speed, etc.. Looks like we got something here.

[PaxMondo]

Yeah, the issue that the IJ had for a long time was they had 2 spd blowers, but NOT 2 stage multi speed blowers. For altitude you really need multiple stages with intercoolers in between and THEN multi speed to allow for combat situations. I haven't been able to find out exactly what their issue was in this regard, but it was the main delay of the entire 2x9 (18 cylinder) family of engines ... the Ha-4x series going into production. They had other issues of course with each engine, but in aggregate they struggled with the multi-stage blowers. My current thought is the inter-cooler itself as they also struggled with twin chargers. Why they simply did not ask Berlin for help is a mystery as the Germans, like the others, all had this working in 1940.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Why they simply did not ask Berlin for help is a mystery as the Germans, like the others, all had this working in 1940.

Read somewhere that IJ planes were very surface conscious; everything was as slim and light as possible to get drag down and keep power loading up there. So there wasn’t any room to add any ‘after market’ goddies without an airframe tweak. And then, turbos needed some serious ducting (weight) and intercoolers ditto, along with intake drag. There were two or three follow-on models that were speced out with turbos, that they had high hopes for, but they couldn’t find a shoehorn big enough, so settled for mechanicals.

And then there was the Stooges comedy between the Military and the designers. Designers made a righteous plane, but then the military comes along (way late in the process) and says, ‘oh no, we want it put there, not here.’ IJ planes had a very sensitive delta-cg budget. Moving something from here to there was an exercise; it took time; Nan-desuka !!!

Am researching the Ki-87 and it is a perfect case in point. Plane was designed with a turbo. Airframe constraints forced the designers to mount it (and ram/intercooler intakes) starboard side and forward of cg. Would have been ‘bumpy’ like a late war Me-109, But the “powers that be” were like, “oh, no, no, WE think you should put it in the belly, behind the cockpit, and add a duct, on the belly, behind the wing, and shift the cockpit forward two feet, and oh, yeah, move the firewall up two feet, and …”

So, Toro and Hamachi committed Seppuku, and the plane was delayed by another 3 months.

Japan had the tech. It’s not rocket science. We had rum-runners tuning up cars during Prohibition, for Chris’ sake. I think it is a national, technical, conceptual, approach to aircraft performance. Japan chose one path and everything they did was in accord with their philosophy. Woof !!

I love this stuff. Please keep talking.

Just IMHO. JWE

[PaxMondo]

You're right about the Stooges comedy vis-a-vis the military. If the Army wanted it on the right, then the Navy had to have it on the left. They were short of resources and wasted them badly on such things.

Ki-87 - very interesting stuff there. What can I say about this twin charger ... at least it is accessible, right?[:'(]

[Dili]

I am just waiting for the discovery that bombers also should get altitude bands , that way it forces the user to use the typical altitude in operation or getting the penalty, well maybe the solution is to put everything as a fighter bomber... in a more perfect game the range should be connected to altitude bands, crew quality, attack size - more bombers less range since they have all to bunch up - , airport size which affects the rate of take off .

[PaxMondo]

I don't think so. Right now, the altitude you set is the attack profile altitude*, not the altitude that they transit at. Transit altitude is whatever was optimal in terms of range for the a/c and in this era for most a/c that would be 10 - 20K.

As you change the bomber altitude you see the affect in terms of lower hit%, less noticeable with heavy bombers and their better bomb sights.

No, I think the devs have this aspect pretty much in control.



* except for TB's for which the attack profile is hard coded.

[Dili]

So the game engine only make possible to have interception in the bomb run, is this true?
In case of torpedo bombers(Beaufort, Beaufighter for example) the altitude was more like a patrol aircraft and certainly not the optimal altitude for range, but the optimal altitude to detect ships. Maybe a naval attack should have less radius of action than a land attack since there is also some search to be done.

[Symon]

Ok, almost done. IJ is done, US is done, Just have to do the Allies. Hootz gazootiez !!

[ny59giants]

John - I've been reading this thread for a while now. I cannot offer anything meaningful to the conversation, but look forward to the results.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

John - I've been reading this thread for a while now. I cannot offer anything meaningful to the conversation, but look forward to the results.

Same here. [:)]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Dili

So the game engine only make possible to have interception in the bomb run, is this true?
In case of torpedo bombers(Beaufort, Beaufighter for example) the altitude was more like a patrol aircraft and certainly not the optimal altitude for range, but the optimal altitude to detect ships. Maybe a naval attack should have less radius of action than a land attack since there is also some search to be done.

1. The air model is point to point. Combat occurs at the target hex at the assigned altitudes which may be the transit altitude or the bomb run depending on how much warning time the CAP had, their climbing rates, whether the CAP gets through the escorting fighters first, if there is post bombing run interception etc etc etc.

2. Don't see any grounds for a naval attack to have less radius. Not true that all naval attacks have to spend more time finding their target than land attack.

3. The game algorithms already factor in the differences between naval and land attacks. One of the means it does so is through Detection Levels.

4. Naval Search is already handled differently from Naval Attack.

There is a limit to tactical considerations possible in a game of this nature. Abstraction of tactical considerations is unavoidable.

Alfred

[packerpete]

Quick question sir. Are you going to incorporate/use the aircraft weapons load feature? I think it would be nice to throw in the non offending/troublesome weapons to add more flavor to the game.

Thank you for your continuing time and effort on improving an already fantastic game.[:)]

[Symon]

Feature is already in there. Michaelm put it in one of the Betas a while back. Should be a thread somewhere about how to work it.

Will keep the standard load-outs for the scenarios. There's so many alternative load-outs that choosing one would be purely arbitrary. My choice might not be what another might choose. So the alternate load-outs are going to have to be a "player's choice" kind of thing [;)] Think that's the best way to keep most people happy.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Think that's the best way to keep most people happy.

100% agree. Any changes and the coyotes will be at your heels left, right, and center. [;)]

[Dili]

There is a limit to tactical considerations possible in a game of this nature. Abstraction of tactical considerations is unavoidable.

Thanks for reply. And obviously depends on work invested for the results.

I disagree with naval attacks, but i agree with your

Not true that all naval attacks have to spend more time finding their target than land attack.

i wasn't clear enough, saying the operative word , most or many.

Actually this could be done with something that could work also for land attacks. Extreme range attacks should have much less odds to be successful: wind, crew quality, strike size etc.

Now any decision like i said must be done if the issue is important against the what investment must be done to change.


I also make a another post about aerial warfare not not hijack this thread.

[packerpete]

I understand your position sir, but let me try to explain my reasoning. I do not have the resources that you possess as to the actual/practical load outs on every aircraft or weapon ever made. I do not have access to the code either (Thank YOU JESUS!!)[:D]. You have mentioned that code does not handle certain weapons well or at all in some cases like depth charges, rockets and parafrags. I am also aware of the debate on the US dive bombers getting the bigger bombs. I guess what I am asking for is a common baseline that the AE community can use a starting point with a listing of the weapons that are excluded because of code incompatibility reasons. There just does not appear to a one stop shopping list for this and many areas in regard to weapons that known only to the devs.

I do hope that you would consider my request sir. I do not wish to offend anyone. It just seems to me that on this issue there is a lot of gray areas that need to mapped out for the less informed ones like myself that love this game.

Thank you for your time.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Extreme range attacks should have much less odds to be successful: wind, crew quality, strike size etc.

This is already accounted for in part by pilot and AC fatigue. Longer ranges greatly increase both and these clearly lower the odds of a good attack outcome.

If I were to make a suggestion, it would be that short range attacks should have a probability of having more than one in a day. A ground attack of range=1 (40 miles) should have a high probability of multiple day attacks. As the range increases this would drop off so that we get back to our single attack per day.

And of course there should be the player option to limit to one attack per day, as clearly plane and pilot fatigue would dramatically rise. PLayer might not want to pulse that many missions, particularly on multi-day turns.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: packerpete
I do hope that you would consider my request sir. I do not wish to offend anyone. It just seems to me that on this issue there is a lot of gray areas that need to mapped out for the less informed ones like myself that love this game.

Thank you for your time.

And thank you. I will consider your requests. Moved your request to a separate thread, because it is important in many ways. Started to address your issues. Understand that there's some degree of obscurity, but will do my best to make it less opaque.

Ciao. JWE
Dili will you please either leave or start your own thread. Your hijacking is rather annoying.

[Dili]

Thanks. I had thought too with short range attack, actually in war for short range often were more than 2 for close support and fighter aircraft.

[Symon]

I would appreciate it if your hijack discussions were taken elsewhere. They have no place on this thread. Thank you.
Good bye.