Nell Search Plane

[el cid again]

I once was a resident computer engineer at a USAF Software Integration Laboratory at
Boeing (working for a contractor, not Boeing itself, although I had a desk there).
We worked on missile and aircraft projects - using computer models and also hardware
like the avionics and control surfaces - to calculate performance. This sort of thing
is why modern aircraft always fly - problems are detected before metal is cut. Anyway -
I use a set of algorithms for range.

For a photo recon range, normal range = 80 % of ferry range; extended range = 90 % of
ferry range. I interpret "transfer range" as the game version of ferry range. The
reason for a difference is that ferry range is the maximum distance it is safe to fly.
Operational ranges factor in some fuel as a reserve - just in case of adverse winds or
a need to evade an enemy fighter.

By comparison, a normal bomber (with an internal bomb load) gets a normal range = 48% of
ferry range and an extended range of 57% of normal range. These numbers are for
"normal bomb load" and "reduced bomb load" respectively. There is a third number for
US and Allied bombers not used by the game: it is what I call "maximum load range" -
the range with the maximum bomb load. Allied bombers usually can carry a lot more than
normal bomb load but to a lesser distance. A typical example is a heavy bomber with a
nominal 10,000 pound capacity normally carries 5,000 pounds, and to extended range,
3,000 pounds.

A different (lower) set of numbers applies if the bomber has external bomb loads. Air
resistance is surprisingly important for long range missions.

[el cid again]

quote:ORIGINAL: John 3rd Good Day All. Michael and I were talking this morning and got to discussing Japanese search aircraft. Came upon the thought that as the Nell is retired from frontline service, what if the Japanese stripped the plane and just left its machine guns and added a camera to it? No bomb or TT capacity. What sort of range would that aircraft have? Would it make for a fine supplement to the Mavis/Emily? Good or bad idea?

The answer is look at the G3M2KAI. It is precisely that. Only it is a PRE WAR plane - stripped for recon to
facilitate planning of offensive operations. It had no markings so Japan could deny it was overflying. It was
grey so it might well not be seen.

Later in the war, older bombers tended to be rearmed for ASW duty. Lack of performance (in that period) mattered
less for patrol duty. Bombers also could be fitted with radar, MAD and/or radio interception sets - all of which
were useful in patrol work. In JAAF service such planes got a -Q designation at the end. The Navy tended to use
a new, higher number at the end of the designation, or no change at all. But the concept proposed is practical
and was also common practice by Japan. Over time the scourge of submarines caused many types to be adapted to
hunt them. Of course, they also would detect and report surface ships.

The Emily was the best long range patrol aircraft of any nation in WW2, with the best performance, and it was the most
difficult of all Japanese aircraft to shoot down (because it was well armed, well protected, and flew low when
under attack - rendering its vulnerable hull impossible to attack from below). It was almost certainly a modified
Clipper with bigger engines and a slightly modified step in the hull - see the China Clipper for details. The problem
with the Emily was it was very expensive to build.