Airplanes

[Symon]

Down to the short strokes. Spitfires, Hurricanes, a handfull of others, and the Sovs. Am getting wonderful data from Neil Stirling on the Brit planes. It's mostly a case of translating Brit-speak into US equivalents.

Won't be long, now. Ciao. JWE

[PaxMondo]

Go John GO!!!!

Home stretch!!!


[&o][&o][&o]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Symon

The A2A code works exactly the same, only some of the data is different. There is still the bounce, sweeps, CAP, etc.., so there’s still much to talk about. Allied planes have an advantage at altitude (because they did), but it is still a later war phenomenon. Thing is the “height” advantage is no longer huge: the advantage is more in the speed/maneuver combo at “height”.

Thus, it’s important to know your specs and make your hi-speed, hi-maneuver-at-hi-altitude, planes serve as your interceptors (because they did). You will have some Jacks and Tonys early on, and more as time goes by [;)].

Even if Allied planes get the bounce, IJ planes won’t be easy meat. There are quite a few 400 mph IJ planes, with nasty maneuver, in the moderate altitude bands. So ‘boom & zoom’ works once, but things will get ‘furball’ if the IJ pilots are any good (because they did).

Certainly not perfect, and certainly not ‘hysterical’, but a bit mo’ beda’ mon when it comes to results, if played righteous [8D].

Anyway, here’s some US and IJ plane’s new altitude ceilings; Brits conform to the algorithm. For speeds, you are just gonna have to look [;)].

26-27k – P-40
28-29k – P-36, P-39, P-40, F2A
30-31k – P-39, F4F, FM1/2, F4U
32-33k – P-40, F6F
34-35k – P-38, F4U, F7F, F8F
36-37k – P-47, P-51
38k – P-38, P-47

26-27k –
28-29k – A5M, A6M, Ki-27
30-31k – N1K2, Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-45, Ki-61, Ki-84 Ki-100
32-33k – A6M, A7M, J2M, N1K1-J, Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-61, Ki-84
34-35k – J2M5, N1K5, Ki-61-II, Ki-93
36-37k – Ki-83, Ki-94-II, Ki-100-II, Ki-102
38k –

First of all THANKS!!! My next game will be DBB as Allies or Japan. [&o][&o][&o]

I've heard that the original speeds for Japanese planes were reduced to approximate poor quality av gas, but never seen this substantiated. Is that part of the equation somewhere? (Not suggesting it should be, use curious. The game of course goes many directions from 'hysterical') If you already addressed this sorry, I missed it.

Next, simply for understanding better, will these changes make the dive less powerful somehow?

Lastly, and this is mostly my inexperience, but also my curiosity, what is playing righteous? [;)] How best to maximize the intent of what you've done here?

[PaxMondo]

When John says "righteous", I think he means don't 'game' the engine.

There are boundaries in the model, there have to be as some things are abstracted. When you push the boundary conditions, you start to get results that are not as well aligned with expectations as they would be if you were more in the middle of the model area. Most of us are aware of several boundaries in the ACM (Air Combat Model). Playing righteous means don't intentionally push the model off into the boundary.

Francois could prolly explain it better ... maybe he will show up to clarify further.

[fodder]

ORIGINAL: Symon
Won't be long, now.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: obvert
First of all THANKS!!! My next game will be DBB as Allies or Japan. [&o][&o][&o]

I've heard that the original speeds for Japanese planes were reduced to approximate poor quality av gas, but never seen this substantiated. Is that part of the equation somewhere? (Not suggesting it should be, use curious. The game of course goes many directions from 'hysterical') If you already addressed this sorry, I missed it.

The original Japanese plane data came right out of Francillon. Francillon notes that his data are translations of the Japanese official acceptance documents. And several of these are reproduced in various forums like j-aircraft, or ww2aircraft.

Problem is they don’t say under what conditions the tests were performed. Apocryphal evidence suggests “normal” power, sometimes with drop tank(s) mounted, sometimes not, it’s a puzzlement.

Virtually every pilot has noted, in interviews, that their planes were faster than the official specs. Sakai routinely flew his 330 mph Zero at 350+ mph in combat. Trick is determining “military” power output and “military” prop rpm settings. Fortunately, those were findable. The contemporary US tests (1943, 44, 45) found many planes/engines performing right around their specs. Also found some that performed substantially better than spec.

Using mil/mil is important since that is how I evaluated the US/Allied planes. Consistency in data is everything.

IJ combat performance avgas was 92 grade and of good quality. It wasn’t till mid 44 that the recipe got dropped to 91 grade, in order to simply get more product. In 45 it went to 87, again just to get more volume of product. The US Technical Mission reports include a very nice one about Japanese refining techniques and fuels.

Anyway, I also started from Francillon, and kept to him as a baseline. Then I overlayed the TAIC reports (and the Brit tests) and did a final tweak with the aerodynamic equations after regression and fitting to get the coefficients right. Used the equations when there was no other credible source available, but it’s amazing how accurately they reproduce the actual test data set when run blind and compared.

Next, simply for understanding better, will these changes make the dive less powerful somehow?

Not exactly, no. But it will make "certain" planes a bit less like ducks in a gallery under the bounce. And the surviving planes can give a better account of themselves in the subsequent furball.

Lastly, and this is mostly my inexperience, but also my curiosity, what is playing righteous? [;)] How best to maximize the intent of what you've done here?

PaxMondo said it very well. Probably better than I would have. [;)]

Ciao. JWE

[offenseman]

The process undertaken here sounded like a lot of work before this explanation, now it sounds like it was (is) even more! I assure you that it will be used righteously and every time I see a N1K1 turn n burn a P47 after the bounce, I will think of all the hard work that went into it. [:D] [&o]

[GreyJoy]

Can't wait to see these mods John! Thanks!!!!!![&o][&o][&o][&o]
 
 

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: obvert
First of all THANKS!!! My next game will be DBB as Allies or Japan. [&o][&o][&o]

I've heard that the original speeds for Japanese planes were reduced to approximate poor quality av gas, but never seen this substantiated. Is that part of the equation somewhere? (Not suggesting it should be, use curious. The game of course goes many directions from 'hysterical') If you already addressed this sorry, I missed it.

The original Japanese plane data came right out of Francillon. Francillon notes that his data are translations of the Japanese official acceptance documents. And several of these are reproduced in various forums like j-aircraft, or ww2aircraft.

Problem is they don’t say under what conditions the tests were performed. Apocryphal evidence suggests “normal” power, sometimes with drop tank(s) mounted, sometimes not, it’s a puzzlement.

Virtually every pilot has noted, in interviews, that their planes were faster than the official specs. Sakai routinely flew his 330 mph Zero at 350+ mph in combat. Trick is determining “military” power output and “military” prop rpm settings. Fortunately, those were findable. The contemporary US tests (1943, 44, 45) found many planes/engines performing right around their specs. Also found some that performed substantially better than spec.

Using mil/mil is important since that is how I evaluated the US/Allied planes. Consistency in data is everything.

IJ combat performance avgas was 92 grade and of good quality. It wasn’t till mid 44 that the recipe got dropped to 91 grade, in order to simply get more product. In 45 it went to 87, again just to get more volume of product. The US Technical Mission reports include a very nice one about Japanese refining techniques and fuels.

Anyway, I also started from Francillon, and kept to him as a baseline. Then I overlayed the TAIC reports (and the Brit tests) and did a final tweak with the aerodynamic equations after regression and fitting to get the coefficients right. Used the equations when there was no other credible source available, but it’s amazing how accurately they reproduce the actual test data set when run blind and compared.

Next, simply for understanding better, will these changes make the dive less powerful somehow?

Not exactly, no. But it will make "certain" planes a bit less like ducks in a gallery under the bounce. And the surviving planes can give a better account of themselves in the subsequent furball.

Lastly, and this is mostly my inexperience, but also my curiosity, what is playing righteous? [;)] How best to maximize the intent of what you've done here?

PaxMondo said it very well. Probably better than I would have. [;)]

Ciao. JWE

Thanks for the detailed response. And to Pax as well.

Can't wait to play it!

A lot of players are looking at the Japanese 'improvements' but I bet the P-40 and P-39 in the early game will be a bit different as well, and that may be a big surprise.

[Dili]

Francillon is poor at least from what i got from Italian airplanes, and for that matter never saw one encyclopedia that is ok.
Ranges vs military loads are the main issue. Typically it appears the max range with the max bomb load. Fiat Br.20 which Japan bought is a clear case usually said to have 1600kg bombload, and about 3000km. Well with that bombload the range was more like 1200km.

[Symon]

Okey dokey then, all done. 555 planes and over 2500 new data entries !! Woof !!

Will start a new thread and put the Beta file in it along with instructions so it's easy to find. Not set up for RA yet. Not hard to do, but will take a little bit of time what with the additional planes and some slot changes.

Ciao. JWE

[offenseman]

Outstanding. I look forward to getting into that file later today and taking a look! The start of our (LoBaron RobBrennanUk, and I) DBB-C is now probably a matter of days away. Thanks again for the efforts!