Ju 87 for RHS-EOS?

[Dili]

There is quite a bit of information about it. What do you want to know?

 
It's weights. I dont believe it could take 800kg load to more than 2000km making it a plane almost in same performance like Ki-21 but at half the size. Doesnt makes any sense.
 

REPLY: 8 x 250 kg = 2,000 kg. 2000 kg < 13760 kg. What is the problem?

&nbsp;
I mean the Max weight. But if&nbsp; you are thinking to put 8x250kg(i suppose because the game doesnt allows to convert 500 to 250 since Ju-88 cant really have enough racks for 8x250kg) then i have no problem.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

REPLY: Apparently not. I see no case where it carries more than 2.4 tons - and am sure that is an increase from the early versions. More than that, there are limits I don't really understand: why it can carry a very heavy assemetric load but not an overload with a complimentary weapon? But for some reason it appears this was the case - and only if it was not might it go to 3 tons.

&nbsp;
Configuration A Column 9 : 3000kg
Configuration A Column 7 : 3000kg&nbsp;
Configuration A Column&nbsp;5 : 2800kg
Configuration A Column 10: 2900kg
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

think one might want the Ju-88 vs a Ki-48. But no one has said so - not even you - so far

&nbsp;
I didnt said because i dont expect to play&nbsp;this version&nbsp;with WITM 40 being developed.

[el cid again]

Ki-44 IIb Composite Fighter Index 6.172 Max Operating Altitude Speed 585 kmh ROC 1128 m/s Ceiling 10.02 km
Ki-44 IIIa Composite Fighter Index 6.936 Max Operating Altitude Speed 655 kmh ROC 1264 m/s Ceiling 12.1 km
FW-190A2 Composite Fighter Index 3.978 Max Operating Altitude Speed 663 kmh ROC 647 m/s Ceiling 10.5 km
FW-190A3 Composite Fighter Index 3.978 Max Operating Altitude Speed 673 kmh ROC 667 m/s Ceiling 10.6 km

Ki-44 IIb Range 1585 km 16/5/4 hexes 4 x 20mm Operational PTO 9/42
Ki-44 IIIa Range 1503 km 15/5/3 hexes 4 x 20mm Operational PTO 10/43
FW-190A2 Range 1004 km 10/3/2 hexes 4 x 20 mm Possible Operational PTO about 10/42
FW-190A3 Range 889 km 9/3/2 hexes 4 x 20 mm Possible Operational PTO about 10/43

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

There is quite a bit of information about it. What do you want to know?

It's weights. I dont believe it could take 800kg load to more than 2000km making it a plane almost in same performance like Ki-21 but at half the size. Doesnt makes any sense.

Actually - it does make some sense. The bomb load was the standard one for JAAF - they wanted to go from using 8 x 50 kg bombs - the old standard for a light bomber - to 8 x 100 kg bombs - the old standard for a "heavy" bomber - and the necessary gear to do that already existed for the Ki-21 and Ki-49. So the actual bomb load itself makes a lot of sense.

Ki-48 II EE Weight 4.5 metric tons Normal Load Weight 6.45 metric tons Max Load Weight 6.7 metric tons

2x1130 hp Engines = 2260 hp Wing Loading 161.25 kg/m sq Power Loading 2.85 kg/hp

No Load Range = 2400 km RHS Range 27/9/6 hexes (for the particular data set I am looking at).


Ki-21 II EE Weight 6.06 metric tons Normal Load Weight 9.7 metric tons Max Load Weight 10.6 metric tons

2x1450 hp Engines = 2900 hp Wing Loading 139.37 kg/m sq Power Loading 3.34 kg/hp

No Load Range = 2700 km RHS Range 30/10/7 hexes (for the particular data set I am looking at).

Note the Ki-21 is an older design - but a very successful one in spite of being unarmored. The Ki-48 II was not very successful - in spite of being armored. Neither had adequate defensive armament, but the Ki-21 was very maneuverable and could often get out of trouble.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Ki-44 IIb Composite Fighter Index 6.172 Max Operating Altitude Speed 585 kmh ROC 1128 m/s Ceiling 10.02 km
Ki-44 IIIa Composite Fighter Index 6.936 Max Operating Altitude Speed 655 kmh ROC 1264 m/s Ceiling 12.1 km
FW-190A2 Composite Fighter Index 3.978 Max Operating Altitude Speed 663 kmh ROC 647 m/s Ceiling 10.5 km
FW-190A3 Composite Fighter Index 3.978 Max Operating Altitude Speed 673 kmh ROC 667 m/s Ceiling 10.6 km

Ki-44 IIb Range 1585 km 16/5/4 hexes 4 x 20mm Operational PTO 9/42
Ki-44 IIIa Range 1503 km 15/5/3 hexes 4 x 20mm Operational PTO 10/43
FW-190A2 Range 1004 km 10/3/2 hexes 4 x 20 mm Possible Operational PTO about 10/42
FW-190A3 Range 889 km 9/3/2 hexes 4 x 20 mm Possible Operational PTO about 10/43

When could the Fw 190 which is able to carry torpedoes arrive? This would be the only one of interest, then.
Moreover, the A2 had 2 7,92mm MGs as well.

[Historiker]

What about giving the Ju-88 1000lbs bombs instead of 250kg if we lack the slot for new 500kg bombs? One big advantege are the big bombs that can even penetrate a BB - so why waste that by equipping it only with 250kg bombs?
Of course, 1000lbs bombs were allied, but it would be a quite good compromise IMHO.

[JeffroK]

Then we shift the Pzkw V & VI and have&nbsp;I SS Pz Korps&nbsp;start at Saigon.
&nbsp;
This is really dreamtime stuff, maybe a pre-war model or two could be shipped, but nothing like the dreams you are having here!!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

What about giving the Ju-88 1000lbs bombs instead of 250kg if we lack the slot for new 500kg bombs? One big advantege are the big bombs that can even penetrate a BB - so why waste that by equipping it only with 250kg bombs?
Of course, 1000lbs bombs were allied, but it would be a quite good compromise IMHO.

The problem isn't the bomb - it is hard code. If I want an extended load of 4 x 250 kg bombs - I must give it 8 x 250s as normal load - code divides by 2 the number of bombs - not the size - which is what Ju-88 really did.

Nor are big bombs usually an "advantage" - although the battleship is the one time they are. But then you want even bigger bombs than 500 kg. In RHS you usually do more damage with smaller bombs of equal weight. As IRL.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Then we shift the Pzkw V & VI and have I SS Pz Korps start at Saigon.

This is really dreamtime stuff, maybe a pre-war model or two could be shipped, but nothing like the dreams you are having here!!

Actually, I am far too strict to permit anything of the sort. We ONLY do things really possible. Someone asked for this six months ago - "what if planning was not started in July 1941 at mobilization - as is the case for EOS?" This is the answer to that. NO dreampuff stuff - whatever.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Ki-44 IIb Composite Fighter Index 6.172 Max Operating Altitude Speed 585 kmh ROC 1128 m/s Ceiling 10.02 km
Ki-44 IIIa Composite Fighter Index 6.936 Max Operating Altitude Speed 655 kmh ROC 1264 m/s Ceiling 12.1 km
FW-190A2 Composite Fighter Index 3.978 Max Operating Altitude Speed 663 kmh ROC 647 m/s Ceiling 10.5 km
FW-190A3 Composite Fighter Index 3.978 Max Operating Altitude Speed 673 kmh ROC 667 m/s Ceiling 10.6 km

Ki-44 IIb Range 1585 km 16/5/4 hexes 4 x 20mm Operational PTO 9/42
Ki-44 IIIa Range 1503 km 15/5/3 hexes 4 x 20mm Operational PTO 10/43
FW-190A2 Range 1004 km 10/3/2 hexes 4 x 20 mm Possible Operational PTO about 10/42
FW-190A3 Range 889 km 9/3/2 hexes 4 x 20 mm Possible Operational PTO about 10/43

When could the Fw 190 which is able to carry torpedoes arrive? This would be the only one of interest, then.
Moreover, the A2 had 2 7,92mm MGs as well.

I don't know - and it is too late to figure it out. Hardly seems practical to me. I suspect you want it to be a carrier aircraft too. Not gonna happen. Japan has a superior oxygen enriched torpedo and won't ever adopt German torpedoes. The plane is not designed for a Japanese torpedo - nor for carrier ops. If not a carrier plane - why have short range fighters with torpedoes on land???? With all the land based torpedo bombers of Japan? Makes little sense to me.

[Dili]

For Ju-88

One solution is 2x500kg+4x250kg that will in extended range be 1x500kg+2x250kg. This is good for mixed missions and also is not an impossibility like 8x250kg due to lack of enough bomb racks.

Weight 4.5 metric tons Normal Load Weight 6.45 metric tons Max Load Weight 6.7 metric tons

I mean fuel weights, etc


Small exercise for Ki-48 from your data:

Empty 4.5t( i dont know if in Japanese proceedings the defensive weapons and comunication systemas are considered part of empty weight. Italians didnt counted radio them as part of empty weight while Germans did)

+400kg 4 crew
+75kg  Defensive MG amno
+70kg  lubrificant oil
+50kg diverses, Radio? others.
+805kg Gas        
+800kg bombs

Total equiped: 6700kg

Comparable aircraft:

Blenheim 2x1000hp engines with 450kg bombs range 1460 statue miles with 1530kg fuel(3370lb = 468 ImpGal) , Max weight of Blenheim is 6583kg , 6800kg in overload
Bristol Beaufort 2x1200hp engines with Torpedo MK XII(702kg) range 1450 miles  with 1863kg fuel(570 imp gal)  T.Off Weight with torpedo 10025kg w/ Torpedo MK XII

% of Fuel weight in T.Off weight
Ki-48 II    12% (6.7t max load)
Blenheim   22,5% (if the data is for overload)  23,2% in normal weight
Beaufort   18,48%

So i would put the range of Ki-48 with 800kg bomb load in 700-800 miles at maximum.

[el cid again]

Actually six bombs is as impractical as eight - when there are hard points for four.

But you make me feel dumb: the solution is 4 x 500 kg becoming 2 x 500 at extended range.

And we do have a 500 kg bomb - so we can do it.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Weight 4.5 metric tons Normal Load Weight 6.45 metric tons Max Load Weight 6.7 metric tons

I mean fuel weights, etc

This is pretty easy: Subtract empty weight plus bomb load from loaded weight - and the rest is fuel.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Weight 4.5 metric tons Normal Load Weight 6.45 metric tons Max Load Weight 6.7 metric tons

I mean fuel weights, etc


Small exercise for Ki-48 from your data:

Empty 4.5t( i dont know if in Japanese proceedings the defensive weapons and comunication systemas are considered part of empty weight. Italians didnt counted radio them as part of empty weight while Germans did)

Since the Japanese mainly copied German and American aviation concepts and terminology, I assume that empty equipped is empty equipped as we understand it: everything is there but the bombs and fuel. You need to add no equipment at all.

I too use 100 kg per crewmember - or passenger. Works very well on the average. But armed paras weigh more.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili


% of Fuel weight in T.Off weight
Ki-48 II    12% (6.7t max load)
Blenheim   22,5% (if the data is for overload)  23,2% in normal weight
Beaufort   18,48%

So i would put the range of Ki-48 with 800kg bomb load in 700-800 miles at maximum.

But that isn't how it works. The efficiency of an aircraft moving over distance is a function of lots of things - mainly drag and fuel consumption rates. Range is measured. To estimate it you need some data from the SAME airframe - not some different one with wholly different engines, wings, things causing drag. Completely invalid approach. Some aircraft are far more efficient than others. The all time record for lift efficiency may be held by the F-5 (the post war jet one - which could lift its own weight three times - once in airframe - once in fuel - and once in weapons). The record for range efficiency with external loads is almost surely held by the A-4 - which can fly unbelievable distances with bombs and tanks hanging on it. In the Falklands War the British military set the long range aviation record for every type of air operation. But the Argentines actually had the potential to do air strikes far out into the ocean - using A-4s: they only lacked the ability to find targets out there. I mean half way across the Atlantic - and return - for a flight of four (which can be serviced by the two KC-130s available). Just because no other jet ever of the era could do that does not mean the A-4 could not. The Ki-48 II was not nearly as heavy as the Ki-21 - and that had a lot to do with its poor defensive armament and small crew size - but it carried the same bomb load. It had smaller power plants of significantly greater fuel efficiency - and that is about the only "secret" there is to it. Range load efficient it may have been - but I still don't want to buy it.

[Dili]

Actually six bombs is as impractical as eight - when there are hard points for four.

&nbsp;
There is 6 hardpoints but the 2 outside wing are rarely used and from what i know&nbsp; are restricted to 250kg. You can see loadouts with 6x250kg bombs. So 2x500kg and 4x250kg are not an impossibility.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Ki-48
&nbsp;
4.5t is empty without crew, bombs, fuel, lubrificant oil,&nbsp;and eventually radio,since it was a rare item for Japanese&nbsp;like for italians and sometimes pilot armor are also not added to empty weight. &nbsp;Eventually if dive brakes are&nbsp;taken out&nbsp;some weight can be saved.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Ki-44 IIb Composite Fighter Index 6.172 Max Operating Altitude Speed 585 kmh ROC 1128 m/s Ceiling 10.02 km
Ki-44 IIIa Composite Fighter Index 6.936 Max Operating Altitude Speed 655 kmh ROC 1264 m/s Ceiling 12.1 km
FW-190A2 Composite Fighter Index 3.978 Max Operating Altitude Speed 663 kmh ROC 647 m/s Ceiling 10.5 km
FW-190A3 Composite Fighter Index 3.978 Max Operating Altitude Speed 673 kmh ROC 667 m/s Ceiling 10.6 km

Ki-44 IIb Range 1585 km 16/5/4 hexes 4 x 20mm Operational PTO 9/42
Ki-44 IIIa Range 1503 km 15/5/3 hexes 4 x 20mm Operational PTO 10/43
FW-190A2 Range 1004 km 10/3/2 hexes 4 x 20 mm Possible Operational PTO about 10/42
FW-190A3 Range 889 km 9/3/2 hexes 4 x 20 mm Possible Operational PTO about 10/43

When could the Fw 190 which is able to carry torpedoes arrive? This would be the only one of interest, then.
Moreover, the A2 had 2 7,92mm MGs as well.

I don't know - and it is too late to figure it out. Hardly seems practical to me. I suspect you want it to be a carrier aircraft too. Not gonna happen. Japan has a superior oxygen enriched torpedo and won't ever adopt German torpedoes. The plane is not designed for a Japanese torpedo - nor for carrier ops. If not a carrier plane - why have short range fighters with torpedoes on land???? With all the land based torpedo bombers of Japan? Makes little sense to me.

I didn't thought about that, but if it's that short legged, even with a torpedo it wouldn't be of great use, I'm afraid...

[Dili]

But that isn't how it works. The efficiency of an aircraft moving over distance is a function of lots of things - mainly drag and fuel consumption rates. Range is measured. To estimate it you need some data from the SAME airframe - not some different one with wholly different engines, wings, things causing drag. Completely invalid approach. Some aircraft are far more efficient than others.

Certainly my approach isnt 100% but what makes a Blenheim have more or less drag than a Ki-48? The have both 2 radial engines, they have more or less same size, Blenheim with 43.5 sqm wing area gives it a 156kg/sqm wing loading in overload weight, and Ki-48 with more 11% power which shows in its superior speed. Even if you want to give a bonus to Ki-48 over Blenheim give it 11% more engine efficiency(which can be disputed) than Blenheim, that puts them in same fuel consumption due to more power. There are no miracles.


Clarification: Data is for Blenheim IV.

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, the Blenheim is certainly sleeker than the Ki-48.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Actually six bombs is as impractical as eight - when there are hard points for four.

There is 6 hardpoints but the 2 outside wing are rarely used and from what i know  are restricted to 250kg. You can see loadouts with 6x250kg bombs. So 2x500kg and 4x250kg are not an impossibility.   

I am still honoring my sources - which without exception list 4 hard points - not 6. However, there is no reason in principle one cannot mount two x 250s on a single hard point - so we can get there either way - it was a good suggestion. So is the concept of using 4 x 500 reducing by code to 2 x 500 - really simple and honors the 4 hard point scheme quite well. For ship bombing this would be nasty. Imagine 4 x 1102 pound bombs in a tight pattern!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

But that isn't how it works. The efficiency of an aircraft moving over distance is a function of lots of things - mainly drag and fuel consumption rates. Range is measured. To estimate it you need some data from the SAME airframe - not some different one with wholly different engines, wings, things causing drag. Completely invalid approach. Some aircraft are far more efficient than others.

Certainly my approach isnt 100% but what makes a Blenheim have more or less drag than a Ki-48? The have both 2 radial engines, they have more or less same size, Blenheim with 43.5 sqm wing area gives it a 156kg/sqm wing loading in overload weight, and Ki-48 with more 11% power which shows in its superior speed. Even if you want to give a bonus to Ki-48 over Blenheim give it 11% more engine efficiency(which can be disputed) than Blenheim, that puts them in same fuel consumption due to more power. There are no miracles.


Clarification: Data is for Blenheim IV.

What is is. We probably could figure this out - but it is a digression and I have things to do. Lots of things affect drag and engine efficiency. It is far better to use the ACTUAL range of a Ki-48 than to ESTIMATE range for it based on a Blenheim. This is an astonishing method to prefer when we actually have measured ranges. What is simply is - and I don't care who likes it or does not.