The US Navy Naval History and Heritage Command has a public website with a cornucopia of data on assorted WW2 aircraft, including combat radius by load-out and the exact drop tank configuration associated. See https://www.history.navy.mil/research/h ... craft.html
This is much like the flight info presented above on the B-17, but in a slightly different format.
I've been hoping to find a USAAF equivalent with good primary reference material but haven't been successful for a free source. This outfit sells PDF for about $19 a pop: http://www.flight-manuals.com/index.html
Aircraft range and combat radius
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
-
Gridley380
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
ORIGINAL: engineer
The US Navy Naval History and Heritage Command has a public website with a cornucopia of data on assorted WW2 aircraft, including combat radius by load-out and the exact drop tank configuration associated. See https://www.history.navy.mil/research/h ... craft.html
This is much like the flight info presented above on the B-17, but in a slightly different format.
Brilliant - and this lets us see where the AE model isn't wrong, but did make a choice that wasn't ideal; they don't give a profile with one bomb bay fuel tank, the wing tanks, and a bomb load; looking at the data and figuring the extra fuel linearly expands the bombing radius (trading off the extra drag from the external tanks against the takeoff/climb) we can calculate a range of almost exactly 17.5 hexes with three 500 pound bombs (aft bomb bay tank and external tanks).
I've been hoping to find a USAAF equivalent with good primary reference material but haven't been successful for a free source. This outfit sells PDF for about $19 a pop: http://www.flight-manuals.com/index.html
Hmm. Might be worth it for particularly critical aircraft - I see they've got PBY-5 operating instructions and a -5A pilot's handbook; seems like both should have payload/range/altitude data?
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
My sources are mostly old books and historical atlases to study actual missions. I don't use online data because often the numbers are unreliable. If you are looking for something quick and easy, though, there's probably more available online today then there was a few years ago when AE first published.
It's fun to get back to near-original sources. As you do your research you get the feel of real decision-making in WWII, when there were no electronic computers and math was done on analog metal flight calculators. Sounds like a lot of math? Remember the real guys dealt with this while eating lousy food and dealing with mosquitoes! If they screwed up, crashing short of home due to fuel exhaustion was a real possibility. Besides IMHO digging into the stock AE data is part of the fun of the game. I did similar fact-checking on the orders of battle and other modifications to get AE as close as possible to WWII reality. I pretty much stick to the Solomons Campaign because it involves all the services and the two sides are evenly matched without "game play balancing".
Be sure to get combat radius (out and back plus target area time) and not combat range (which is one-way endurance). A combat radius is nominally 1/3 of your fuel to get to the target, 1/3 to use in the vicinity of target and 1/3 to get home. Aircraft didn't always get a full fuel load if the target was relatively close. This allowed a larger bomb load. Internet numbers are notoriously bad in ignoring the difference between range and radius.
In an atlas use a drafting compass to determine the radius. Once the compass is set to the range ring for the mission it describes, compare against the mileage scale on the map legend. Be sure of your units: statute miles (5,280 feet), nautical miles (6,040 feet) or kilometers. You will need to convert to the distance and speed units used by AE. AE I think uses MPH rather than knots (nautical miles per hour) for aircraft speed.
In a text, for example if B-17E models were used to bomb Rabaul from Port Moresby for example, carrying 4 x 500lb GP bombs without a Tokyo tank, you can measure the distance from P-M to Rabaul on the map (remember the distance units are important). You know that the combat radius has to be at least that number of the B-17s recovered at P-M after the mission.
For the B-17F I know the combat radius from Fire in the Skyand General Kinney Reports, histories of the 5th Air Force. I went aircraft by aircraft to get the combat radii. Then I modded the endurance and bomb load to get a relatively accurate number.
This is mainly for heavy and medium bombers and their escorts, if any. Carrier aircraft numbers are pretty accurate already, based on verification from numerous histories. Interceptors operate close to base so frankly didn't bother with them.
Self-sealing fuel cells cut the range and radius because the rubberized bladder itself uses some of the volume of the fuel cell itself and of course add weight to the airframe. That's one of several reasons why Japanese aircraft tend to have longer ranges. So data for very early-war Allied aircraft will be mainly for planes without these features. They became widely deployed by mid-1942, too late for many Allied pilots. So you may want to cut the range/radius a bit by July 1942 even for the same model aircraft.
In my own Air Force experience in supporting aircraft in combat I can tell you that real missions are sometimes flown beyond published combat radii. Since Vietnam we have had tanker support but are of course still subject to weather effects and detours around fixed enemy air defenses.
Anyway that's my two cents on the subject.
It's fun to get back to near-original sources. As you do your research you get the feel of real decision-making in WWII, when there were no electronic computers and math was done on analog metal flight calculators. Sounds like a lot of math? Remember the real guys dealt with this while eating lousy food and dealing with mosquitoes! If they screwed up, crashing short of home due to fuel exhaustion was a real possibility. Besides IMHO digging into the stock AE data is part of the fun of the game. I did similar fact-checking on the orders of battle and other modifications to get AE as close as possible to WWII reality. I pretty much stick to the Solomons Campaign because it involves all the services and the two sides are evenly matched without "game play balancing".
Be sure to get combat radius (out and back plus target area time) and not combat range (which is one-way endurance). A combat radius is nominally 1/3 of your fuel to get to the target, 1/3 to use in the vicinity of target and 1/3 to get home. Aircraft didn't always get a full fuel load if the target was relatively close. This allowed a larger bomb load. Internet numbers are notoriously bad in ignoring the difference between range and radius.
In an atlas use a drafting compass to determine the radius. Once the compass is set to the range ring for the mission it describes, compare against the mileage scale on the map legend. Be sure of your units: statute miles (5,280 feet), nautical miles (6,040 feet) or kilometers. You will need to convert to the distance and speed units used by AE. AE I think uses MPH rather than knots (nautical miles per hour) for aircraft speed.
In a text, for example if B-17E models were used to bomb Rabaul from Port Moresby for example, carrying 4 x 500lb GP bombs without a Tokyo tank, you can measure the distance from P-M to Rabaul on the map (remember the distance units are important). You know that the combat radius has to be at least that number of the B-17s recovered at P-M after the mission.
For the B-17F I know the combat radius from Fire in the Skyand General Kinney Reports, histories of the 5th Air Force. I went aircraft by aircraft to get the combat radii. Then I modded the endurance and bomb load to get a relatively accurate number.
This is mainly for heavy and medium bombers and their escorts, if any. Carrier aircraft numbers are pretty accurate already, based on verification from numerous histories. Interceptors operate close to base so frankly didn't bother with them.
Self-sealing fuel cells cut the range and radius because the rubberized bladder itself uses some of the volume of the fuel cell itself and of course add weight to the airframe. That's one of several reasons why Japanese aircraft tend to have longer ranges. So data for very early-war Allied aircraft will be mainly for planes without these features. They became widely deployed by mid-1942, too late for many Allied pilots. So you may want to cut the range/radius a bit by July 1942 even for the same model aircraft.
In my own Air Force experience in supporting aircraft in combat I can tell you that real missions are sometimes flown beyond published combat radii. Since Vietnam we have had tanker support but are of course still subject to weather effects and detours around fixed enemy air defenses.
Anyway that's my two cents on the subject.
Joe
-
Gridley380
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
ORIGINAL: jmolyson
It's fun to get back to near-original sources.
Oh yes. The most fun I've ever had doing "book" research was when I visited AHEC and got to hold actual WWII TO&E's in my hands. (And AHEC, unlike NARA, lets you photograph!)
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
Another thread were the realities of the game code is totally overlooked as some people find some material on the internet which allows them to claim the devs were dumb and produced wrong data. I wasn't going to provide the correct answers to the OP but post #17 indicates the OP might deserve the benefit of the doubt. Of course the other responders just go on their usual ego trips and "interesting" claims.
The first thing which is always present in this type of thread is the view that the devs "got it wrong". That is a rather arrogant attitude. In fact the two key dvs involved in designing the air component are far more qualified than most people who post. One of them is a USN officer with both combat experience flying carrier fighters and secondment to naval HQ in Italy. The other is an actual historian, you know the type who teaches at an educational institution, not the armchair type who relies on googling the internet from their basement. As a professional historian it is second nature to him to assess the quality of, and compare, the sources. So when they produce a data point which some indeterminate internet source is at variance, the non arrogant response should be to assume they had good reason to produce what they did. Which of course they did have good reason. One being code limitations which force certain abstractions to cover all the range of real world data points because the code allows only one data point. Another being the need to use a consistent methodology when translating data into a commercial product. Individuals who produce a non commercial private mod for their own use can pick and choose which aircraft models they will provide an advantage to compared to other company/nation models, but this course of action is not desirable in a commercial product.
Most of the OP is not applicable to AE. In general terms, the game methodology regarding range is:
maximum range (= OP transfer range) is 85% of historical maximum range
extended range is 66% of historical maximum range
normal range is 80% of game extended range
This methodology is then massaged to fit into certain game code limitations. The game endurance number plays no role in determining aircraft model range in AE; it did in classical WITP where range was a hard coded calculation derived from endurance and cruise speed. In AE each aircraft model's range was manually inputted, endurance is factored into other game aspects.
There is an informative dev post of 12 Feb 2010 which explains why they adopted the above methodology. Their methodology had to take into account that aircraft were not always flown under best case conditions. Sure, a Fortress could be ferried from the West Coast to Pearl Harbor in a single air hop. That is if you recognise, with the expectation of not meeting enemy aircraft en route, that it would be stripped down of unnecessary equipment and surplus crew. Upon arrival at Pearl Harbor, with its extensive store, all that equipment and personnel could be reattached. But how, in game terms, do you then strip down a Fortress being ferried from Brisbane to an undeveloped airfield in the South Pacific, with the possibility of meeting enemy aircraft en route not able to be dismissed; a base which furthermore lacked the onsite stores and personnel to reequip that Fortress for immediate operations. In the real world, even if the air unit could do the ferry in one hop, it still took some time (measured in weeks) before the unit was operational from the new airfield. Not so in AE where, with the certainty of no possible encounter with enemy aircraft en route, a player can by air transfer long distance a Fortress unit and have it flying air missions at worst the following turn. The game code does not allow for variable max ranges so selecting 85% as the consistent data point covers both best case and less than best case circumstances.
Then there is the issue of the quality of internet sources. The OP is well aware of the many variables which impact on aircraft performance. Specific details of the variables present in determining the published performance aircraft figures are rarely specified. Not knowing the specific variables, how does one determine for AE the relative performance data between different models of different nations. Should an aircraft be penalised because it lacks complete documentary data (maybe because the documents were destroyed in a fire bombing mission or to deny the enemy access to the performance data) when compared to a more popularly known aircraft (lets say a Flying Fortress) whose performance data was widely publicised to boost morale and secure fundi8ng. For a commercial product, such treatment will generate irate comments (and harm product sales) from the disadvantaged aircraft fanbois. So a judgement call on 85% as a consistent methodology was made.
Alfred
The first thing which is always present in this type of thread is the view that the devs "got it wrong". That is a rather arrogant attitude. In fact the two key dvs involved in designing the air component are far more qualified than most people who post. One of them is a USN officer with both combat experience flying carrier fighters and secondment to naval HQ in Italy. The other is an actual historian, you know the type who teaches at an educational institution, not the armchair type who relies on googling the internet from their basement. As a professional historian it is second nature to him to assess the quality of, and compare, the sources. So when they produce a data point which some indeterminate internet source is at variance, the non arrogant response should be to assume they had good reason to produce what they did. Which of course they did have good reason. One being code limitations which force certain abstractions to cover all the range of real world data points because the code allows only one data point. Another being the need to use a consistent methodology when translating data into a commercial product. Individuals who produce a non commercial private mod for their own use can pick and choose which aircraft models they will provide an advantage to compared to other company/nation models, but this course of action is not desirable in a commercial product.
Most of the OP is not applicable to AE. In general terms, the game methodology regarding range is:
maximum range (= OP transfer range) is 85% of historical maximum range
extended range is 66% of historical maximum range
normal range is 80% of game extended range
This methodology is then massaged to fit into certain game code limitations. The game endurance number plays no role in determining aircraft model range in AE; it did in classical WITP where range was a hard coded calculation derived from endurance and cruise speed. In AE each aircraft model's range was manually inputted, endurance is factored into other game aspects.
There is an informative dev post of 12 Feb 2010 which explains why they adopted the above methodology. Their methodology had to take into account that aircraft were not always flown under best case conditions. Sure, a Fortress could be ferried from the West Coast to Pearl Harbor in a single air hop. That is if you recognise, with the expectation of not meeting enemy aircraft en route, that it would be stripped down of unnecessary equipment and surplus crew. Upon arrival at Pearl Harbor, with its extensive store, all that equipment and personnel could be reattached. But how, in game terms, do you then strip down a Fortress being ferried from Brisbane to an undeveloped airfield in the South Pacific, with the possibility of meeting enemy aircraft en route not able to be dismissed; a base which furthermore lacked the onsite stores and personnel to reequip that Fortress for immediate operations. In the real world, even if the air unit could do the ferry in one hop, it still took some time (measured in weeks) before the unit was operational from the new airfield. Not so in AE where, with the certainty of no possible encounter with enemy aircraft en route, a player can by air transfer long distance a Fortress unit and have it flying air missions at worst the following turn. The game code does not allow for variable max ranges so selecting 85% as the consistent data point covers both best case and less than best case circumstances.
Then there is the issue of the quality of internet sources. The OP is well aware of the many variables which impact on aircraft performance. Specific details of the variables present in determining the published performance aircraft figures are rarely specified. Not knowing the specific variables, how does one determine for AE the relative performance data between different models of different nations. Should an aircraft be penalised because it lacks complete documentary data (maybe because the documents were destroyed in a fire bombing mission or to deny the enemy access to the performance data) when compared to a more popularly known aircraft (lets say a Flying Fortress) whose performance data was widely publicised to boost morale and secure fundi8ng. For a commercial product, such treatment will generate irate comments (and harm product sales) from the disadvantaged aircraft fanbois. So a judgement call on 85% as a consistent methodology was made.
Alfred
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
From the Navy Site:
PBY-6A: Search radius (with 2 drop tanks) 830 NM, 21 hexes
ASW Radius (4 325 lb depth charges) 682 nm, 17 hexes - no tanks
Footnote gives combat radius as 40% of combat range given the very long range.
Need a little research on the 5 vs. 6A differences.
PV-1: Normal bombing radius (6 500 lbs, no tanks) 460 nm (40% range) in good weather and 380 (33% range)in bad (footnote indicates greater reserves allocated for adverse conditions. 380 lines up nicely with stock AE range.
PV-1: An extended mission would put a tank in the bomb bay, a 1000 lb bomb on each wing hard point, and give a fair weather combat radius of 525 nm (13 hexes) or a foul weather range of 460 nm (11 1/2 hexes).
The notes allow you to infer you could also an ultra extended range with clean wings, 3 500 lbs and the bomb bay tank so that might push you up to 14 hexes. A super ultra combat radius (bomb-bay tank, drop tanks, and 3 500 lbs would be about 650 nm (my estimate for what its worth) based on 33% of combat range. So would 16 hexes line up with the historical mission record? It is 15 hexes from Eniwetok to Truk - check. It's 17 hexes from Kiska to Paramushiro but if we went with a fair weather range of 800 nm (20 hexes) from 40% of ~2000 nm range in that configuration still plausible on sunny days. The flight characteristics check out to the mission history (as one would expect).
Whether all of that is plausibly codeable in the editor is a different matter. This gets to the point of AE as simulation vs. game
PBY-6A: Search radius (with 2 drop tanks) 830 NM, 21 hexes
ASW Radius (4 325 lb depth charges) 682 nm, 17 hexes - no tanks
Footnote gives combat radius as 40% of combat range given the very long range.
Need a little research on the 5 vs. 6A differences.
PV-1: Normal bombing radius (6 500 lbs, no tanks) 460 nm (40% range) in good weather and 380 (33% range)in bad (footnote indicates greater reserves allocated for adverse conditions. 380 lines up nicely with stock AE range.
PV-1: An extended mission would put a tank in the bomb bay, a 1000 lb bomb on each wing hard point, and give a fair weather combat radius of 525 nm (13 hexes) or a foul weather range of 460 nm (11 1/2 hexes).
The notes allow you to infer you could also an ultra extended range with clean wings, 3 500 lbs and the bomb bay tank so that might push you up to 14 hexes. A super ultra combat radius (bomb-bay tank, drop tanks, and 3 500 lbs would be about 650 nm (my estimate for what its worth) based on 33% of combat range. So would 16 hexes line up with the historical mission record? It is 15 hexes from Eniwetok to Truk - check. It's 17 hexes from Kiska to Paramushiro but if we went with a fair weather range of 800 nm (20 hexes) from 40% of ~2000 nm range in that configuration still plausible on sunny days. The flight characteristics check out to the mission history (as one would expect).
Whether all of that is plausibly codeable in the editor is a different matter. This gets to the point of AE as simulation vs. game
-
Gridley380
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
ORIGINAL: Alfred
Another thread were the realities of the game code is totally overlooked as some people find some material on the internet which allows them to claim the devs were dumb and produced wrong data. I wasn't going to provide the correct answers to the OP but post #17 indicates the OP might deserve the benefit of the doubt. Of course the other responders just go on their usual ego trips and "interesting" claims.
Are you suggesting the scans of action reports from PV-1 squadrons that bombed Paramushiro from Attu are fake?
Or that the data from the Naval History and Heritage Command (a navy.mil URL, you'll note) is?
Both?
Or should we not be able to reproduce regular historical missions?
Sure, you can't code a game for everything (I'll never fault the developers for not enabling a "Doolittle raid", nor the balloon bombing of the west coast, or a dozen other niche events), but shouldn't the actual history provide a guide for whether the game's parameters and abstractions were done right?
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
The map is surely distorted somewhat simply because of the projection of a "round" object on a "flat surface". In the end it's more important that a 12 kt convoy makes it from San Francisco to Brisbane in roughly the "right amount of time" following the "typical convoy route" than that PV-1s can bomb Paramushiro.
It is, however; advantageous to Japan to essentially ignore a theater of operations to which they historically committed significant resources because of said distortions (the B-25 and P-38 were also apparently able to make the flight from Attu to Paramushiro and return).
It is, however; advantageous to Japan to essentially ignore a theater of operations to which they historically committed significant resources because of said distortions (the B-25 and P-38 were also apparently able to make the flight from Attu to Paramushiro and return).
-
Gridley380
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
ORIGINAL: spence
The map is surely distorted somewhat simply because of the projection of a "round" object on a "flat surface". In the end it's more important that a 12 kt convoy makes it from San Francisco to Brisbane in roughly the "right amount of time" following the "typical convoy route" than that PV-1s can bomb Paramushiro.
Actually in this specific case it looks like the map isn't distorted (653 nm, the real distance, comes to a bit over 16.3 hexes and on the map it is 17 - plenty close enough). The NHHC data supports the idea of a real bombing radius of ~17.5 hexes (with a reduced load and bomb bay fuel tanks), and the scans on the vpnavy site provide historical payload data for that mission that match up.
This, as noted above, doesn't mean the game loadouts are inaccurate, but by choosing to model the loudout differently (but still historically accurately) the historical mission can be achieved with historical range and loadout. A 17 hex range with three 500 pound bombs (and aft bomb bay tank plus wing drop tanks) is accurate both technically and historically.
I am perfectly willing to stipulate that the original design team did an amazing job with the data reasonably available to them at the time and the constraints of a need to make a viable game. For that matter there is, sadly, less existing data on the Pacific War now than there was then (artifacts and documents degrade, witnesses die, etc.). But there is more *readily available* data now than there was then. Wrecks have been located and dived on. Japanese sources have been translated and published. Declassified information has been analyzed.
No, you shouldn't blindly accept everything on the net - but you are fool if you dismiss a contemporary source because it has been scanned and uploaded.
Edit to add: the design team were, in my opinion, particularly wise to include a robust and surprisingly user-friendly editor. Hey look, here were are in the modding section talking about something that can be modded!
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
Another thread were the realities of the game code is totally overlooked as some people find some material on the internet which allows them to claim the devs were dumb and produced wrong data. I wasn't going to provide the correct answers to the OP but post #17 indicates the OP might deserve the benefit of the doubt. Of course the other responders just go on their usual ego trips and "interesting" claims.
Yeah, who cares what the actual Aircraft Actions Reports filed by the flight leaders who personally braved enemy fighters and the abominable North Pacific weather have to say! Frankly I find your haughty dismissal of all that is not Alfred a bit over the top.
BTW: It seems that Paramushiro/Shimushu fell within the range of B-25s (17 hexes is in excess of any models' range per AE) according to the following:
https://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields ... ushir.html
Although perhaps the above link is some kind of propaganda for the USAAF/USAF photos of the airfield(s) at Attu commonly show B-25s.
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
Going back to the Navy Departments Bureau of Aeronautics data, they give the PBJ-1J (a late model B-25) an operating range of almost 1700 nm with a reduced bomb load and a 215 gallon bomb-bay tank. So with the 40% fair weather combat radius you get 680 nm combat radius, the magic 17 hexes to Paramushiro.
Again, I'll restate the simulation vs. game caveat. This seems to offer the Allies an opportunity to mount at least nuisance raids that could distract or tie down forces that stock AE doesn't replicate. Historically, they took place and that's enough for the modder who is looking to try and closely replicate what happened. However, how that influences as big and complicated an engine as a full bore AE game another matter.
FYI: I've been looking at the F4F and F6F data and coming up with range reductions vs. stock without drop tanks. So source reference data can be a two edged sword. A big part of that is that range formula that the Navy used presumed a 20 minute combat interval at military power.
Again, I'll restate the simulation vs. game caveat. This seems to offer the Allies an opportunity to mount at least nuisance raids that could distract or tie down forces that stock AE doesn't replicate. Historically, they took place and that's enough for the modder who is looking to try and closely replicate what happened. However, how that influences as big and complicated an engine as a full bore AE game another matter.
FYI: I've been looking at the F4F and F6F data and coming up with range reductions vs. stock without drop tanks. So source reference data can be a two edged sword. A big part of that is that range formula that the Navy used presumed a 20 minute combat interval at military power.
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
For the above, I would suggest the following two sites:ORIGINAL: engineer
I've been hoping to find a USAAF equivalent with good primary reference material but haven't been successful for a free source. This outfit sells PDF for about $19 a pop: http://www.flight-manuals.com/index.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
https://www.avialogs.com/
The first site has a plethora of actual flight testing reports on many WWII aircraft. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page for a given aircraft, you can also find links to additional related materials. The second site contains the actual pilot flight training, flight operating instruction, erection & maintenance manuals, and more for a wide variety of WWII and later aircraft.
From the "Aircraft Characteristics & Performance" and "Standard Aircraft Characteristics" publications I've seen, for its calculations of combat radius the USN generally used the following as standard parameters:ORIGINAL: engineer
FYI: I've been looking at the F4F and F6F data and coming up with range reductions vs. stock without drop tanks. So source reference data can be a two edged sword. A big part of that is that range formula that the Navy used presumed a 20 minute combat interval at military power.
20 minute warm-up; 1 minute take-off; 20 minute rendezvous, climb to 15,000 feet; cruise out at 15,000 feet using engine settings for maximum range; release drop tanks upon entering combat; 20 minutes of combat using military power and war emergency power; and cruise back at 1,500 feet. Also included was a reserve of fuel equal to the amount consumed in 60 minutes of cruising using engine settings for maximum range.
That reserve fuel amount inclusion in the combat radius calculation greatly reduces the non-drop tank radius, since that reserve eats up a much larger share of the starting fuel as compared to when a drop tank is in use. From the ACP for the F6F-3, the combat radius on internal fuel only was 120 nautical miles; with a 150 gallon drop tank, the radius was 335 nm. (Carrying a 1,000 lb bomb in addition to the drop tank reduced the radius only slightly, to 310 nm. The radius while carrying six 5" HVAR and a drop tank was 305 nm.)
The ACP for the F4F-4 lists a combat radius of 105 nm on internal fuel; 245 nm with one 58 gallon drop tank; and 325 nm with two 58 gallon drop tanks.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: Aircraft range and combat radius
One issue that appears to have eluded this discussion is map distortion. In the North, and in particular in
Alaska, ranges are badly distorted by the map projection used. Indeed, the ranges of aircraft in Alaska often
can be 100% greater than could be flown, point to point. Ranges should be designed on the basis of the map scale,
which does pretty well match the map near the center - where most operations occur.
Possibly the greatest map distortion is in the Indian Ocean area. A special version of the PBY - used as an airliner -
flew from Perth to Columbo. It still holds the airline endurance record (in terms of hours) and was nicknamed
"the flight of the two sunrises" because it was deliberately timed to maximize night flying when nearest to Japanese
occupied territories (e.g. Sumatra, Malaya). Even though a realistic game range for this aircraft does not
permit the historical route, it IS a useful aircraft to have, particularly for the Allies with the vast distances
between their bases. Long range isn't as useful as it might seem in game terms: often the planes don't fly
for several days (possibly due to weather considerations). The game system is a compromise and works best with
things near the averages - not near the extremes.
Alaska, ranges are badly distorted by the map projection used. Indeed, the ranges of aircraft in Alaska often
can be 100% greater than could be flown, point to point. Ranges should be designed on the basis of the map scale,
which does pretty well match the map near the center - where most operations occur.
Possibly the greatest map distortion is in the Indian Ocean area. A special version of the PBY - used as an airliner -
flew from Perth to Columbo. It still holds the airline endurance record (in terms of hours) and was nicknamed
"the flight of the two sunrises" because it was deliberately timed to maximize night flying when nearest to Japanese
occupied territories (e.g. Sumatra, Malaya). Even though a realistic game range for this aircraft does not
permit the historical route, it IS a useful aircraft to have, particularly for the Allies with the vast distances
between their bases. Long range isn't as useful as it might seem in game terms: often the planes don't fly
for several days (possibly due to weather considerations). The game system is a compromise and works best with
things near the averages - not near the extremes.