But I LIKE that plane!!

[chazz]

Just wondering how you order your a/c production to continue a particular model rather than stop producing it automatically.

My favorite Allied reconaissance plane is the F4F-7. We likes that plane, precious and we wants to keep getting it.

Can you help?

[btd64]

If you go into the editor you can push the production end date back. Not sure if it will work in an existing game though....GP

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: btd64

If you go into the editor you can push the production end date back. Not sure if it will work in an existing game though....GP

It should work for an ongoing game. I did it once for the Dutch so they would get P-40s for a few months longer. Just make sure you edit the scenario you started with.

[Lokasenna]

If it happens to be produced by an on-map factory (I don't think the F4F-7 is one of those), you can change that factory to not upgrade in your Industry screen (J). You can keep production of some models of the B-17, B-24, and P-38 this way.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: chazz

Just wondering how you order your a/c production to continue a particular model rather than stop producing it automatically.

My favorite Allied reconaissance plane is the F4F-7. We likes that plane, precious and we wants to keep getting it.

Can you help?

Among "odd" planes, this is a favourite of mine, too.

Fred

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

If it happens to be produced by an on-map factory (I don't think the F4F-7 is one of those), you can change that factory to not upgrade in your Industry screen (J). You can keep production of some models of the B-17, B-24, and P-38 this way.

You learn something new with the game every day. I never thought of this. Thanks Lokasenna [:)]....GP

[HansBolter]

The F4F7 has an extremely limited production run.

You would have to use the editor and create a modified scenario with greater production of the air frame to be able to get more use out of it.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The F4F7 has an extremely limited production run.

You would have to use the editor and create a modified scenario with greater production of the air frame to be able to get more use out of it.

Yes, I believe they made 22 copies.

Fred
-----

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: btd64

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

If it happens to be produced by an on-map factory (I don't think the F4F-7 is one of those), you can change that factory to not upgrade in your Industry screen (J). You can keep production of some models of the B-17, B-24, and P-38 this way.

You learn something new with the game every day. I never thought of this. Thanks Lokasenna [:)]....GP

To be honest, I don't find it worthwhile to do that unless you have a really good reason to do so.

IIRC there is one P-38 model that I would stop it at, but it's later in the war... and I ended up not feeling the need.

[RangerJoe]

One of the P-40 models goes down to 4 machine guns. I think that is not an improvement. I don't think that the maneuverability went up but I don't recall.

[btd64]

Still a creative idea....GP

[alimentary]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
One of the P-40 models goes down to 4 machine guns. I think that is not an improvement. I don't think that the maneuverability went up but I don't recall.

P-40N1 versus P-40K according to tracker (scenario 1). Maneuver and climb both improve, range drops, ceiling increases.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: alimentary

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
One of the P-40 models goes down to 4 machine guns. I think that is not an improvement. I don't think that the maneuverability went up but I don't recall.

P-40N1 versus P-40K according to tracker (scenario 1). Maneuver and climb both improve, range drops, ceiling increases.

Ah, that's the one.

On second thought, I think I did keep this one rather than the N1, if I could. The ceiling goes way up, but the maneuver up that high goes way down. And the max speed increase is not enough to make that a good tradeoff to me.

[JohnDillworth]

I like the F4F-7 too. On paper, it looks like a great idea, but in practice it probably was not practical. Single engine fighter, with an enormous amount of fuel, limited visibility,no navigator, built to fly exclusively over water. Regular single engine fighters had enough navigating over oceans as it was. Reconnaissance aircraft should have at least 2 engines and a dedicated navigator who was really good at his job. Say what you will about the p-38 as a fighter, it must have been comforting to have 2 engines over those long open water flights

[Jorge_Stanbury]

from
https://nzwarbirds.org.nz/gallery/warbi ... yhawk.html

"By the summer of 1943, the performance of the P-40 Warhawk was leaving much to be desired, especially in comparison to the later types such as the P-38, P-47, and P-51 which were beginning to come into service. The P-40N version (company designation Model 87V, 87W) was introduced at this time in an effort to improve the capabilities of the basic design and thus avoid interrupting Curtiss production lines by having the company introduce an entirely new type. The first 1500 examples of this new Warhawk line were to have been delivered as P-40Ps powered by Merlin engines, but (as previously mentioned) shortages of the Packard built Merlin caused this order to be cancelled and the P-40N with the 1360 hp Allison V-1710-81 engine to be substituted in its place.

A new lightweight structure was introduced, two of the six wing-mounted guns were removed, smaller and lighter undercarriage wheels were installed, head armour was reintroduced, and aluminium radiators and oil coolers were installed. The resulting reduction in the weight, along with the use of the same V-1710-81 engine as used in the P-40M, made the P-40N the fastest of the P-40 series, reaching a speed of 378 mph at 10,500 feet. Even though by 1943 standards the Warhawk was rapidly becoming obsolescent, the P-40N became the version that was most widely built with 5220 examples rolling off the Curtiss lines before production finally ceased."


but I agree, I would have kept the longer range P-40K

[chazz]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

I like the F4F-7 too. On paper, it looks like a great idea, but in practice it probably was not practical. Single engine fighter, with an enormous amount of fuel, limited visibility,no navigator, built to fly exclusively over water. Regular single engine fighters had enough navigating over oceans as it was. Reconnaissance aircraft should have at least 2 engines and a dedicated navigator who was really good at his job. Say what you will about the p-38 as a fighter, it must have been comforting to have 2 engines over those long open water flights

Seems reasonable. The USN and USMC are eventually forced to use the B24 which has such a crap service rating. I'm thinking that a recon version of the Catalina would have been better.

[chazz]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The F4F7 has an extremely limited production run.

You would have to use the editor and create a modified scenario with greater production of the air frame to be able to get more use out of it.

Thanks for the reply. Is there a thread showing how to use the editor?

[chazz]

Thanks for the reply, folks.

I can see myself using the Liberator recon birds for the long distance recon missions and using PBY squadrons in the recon role with recon-trained pilots. Is there a huge difference using camera-equipped a/c versus not?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: chazz

Thanks for the reply, folks.

I can see myself using the Liberator recon birds for the long distance recon missions and using PBY squadrons in the recon role with recon-trained pilots. Is there a huge difference using camera-equipped a/c versus not?

Yes. The cameras give a higher DL.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: chazz

Thanks for the reply, folks.

I can see myself using the Liberator recon birds for the long distance recon missions and using PBY squadrons in the recon role with recon-trained pilots. Is there a huge difference using camera-equipped a/c versus not?

Yes. The cameras give a higher DL.

And a proper Recon aircraft with camera provides a higher D/L increase than a general purpose aircraft like the Catalina with a camera.