Mogami wrote:Hi, The 2.30 version of the Beaufighter is a result of Forum poster requests (Aussies)
The bombload was 2x250lb bombs in early versions. Later versions had wings strengthed for 1000 lb bombs but the engines for this were not available.
You don't know what you're talking about. The only "wing strengthening" the Beaufighter was treated to was in its original design and that was to take up the increase in vibration caused by the change of engines from the Beaufort (Taurus) to the Beaufighter's Hercules. This problem the designers got around by moving the engines forward, away from the front surface of the wings, and to compensate for this new stronger and more flexible struts were built. With the engine vibration effectively dampened, a new problem arose: unfortunately this move forward of the engines caused the c.g. to shift forward as well and so more engineering thought had to be invested, with the end result the Beaufighter ended up with a "nose job." (In retrospect the same question of balance might well have been solved even more elegantly, simply by providing for, instead of a single .303 Vickers or Browning in the dorsal a twin-.50-caliber arrangement--this would probably have added to the plane's gross weight but then speed and climb rate were never this plane's forte anyway and the latter armament would have put out a helluva lot more lead.)
As for the engines: the power necessary for 2,000-pound missions was already there. Throughout the war the ongoing series Rolls-Royce Merlin engines enjoyed ever-increasing power output through the simple expedient of adding large amounts of of tetra-ethy lead to up their octane ratings. As it turned out, the Bristol Hercules line for whatever reasons did not enjoy the same upgrade path with regard to increased engine performance and by the time the Beaufighter Mark VI was in production the Bristols had pretty much seen their best power-output specs.
In late 1941 the Beaufighter did see a suspension of shipments of the Hercules engines (these were transferred to the Shorts Stirling project) and so was forced to use Merlins instead, but the intervening models were experimental only and with the introduction of the Mark VI the Beaufighter once again found itself powered by Hercules.
In any event, the Beaufighter never received any engine upgrades after its Mark X series was introduced and the Mark VI
very much most definitely ain't no doubt about it and I don't care what the Aussies in this forum believe was rated for a payload of not 500 pounds and not 1,000 pounds but a full ton, or, should you prefer, 2X454kg bombs.
There are references to the wing machine guns needing to be removed in order to fit the rockets but I can't run this down in any more detail. If anyone else can it might prove helpful to the project.
In any event. the Beaufighter
normally was used as a torpedo-bomber and on ASW patrol (with its thimble-nosed AI which proved quite effective in this role) and this plane's range in the
UV database is also completely screwed up, indeed, screwed up by an amazing factor of .50.
The Beaufighter's range needs to be D-O-U-B-L-E-D. And that's W-I-T-H torpedo loads.
The Beaufighter did operate at night in the Pacific but as a strike aircraft. (If you have data on night fighters in Pacific post that so it can be used)
As a matter of fact I don't have that data but I'd be interested to see it, either way, mind you. Most Beafighters in the Pacific were flown by Australians, New Zealanders and British--only a few went to USAAF units. I am not a "Beaufighter advocate" or particular fan of the airplane in any manner, Mogami, I just want to see the database corrected. But I've only so much time to run this stuff down and besides, WWII isn't even my primary area of interest.
Do some research yourself. These details ought to have been gotten right the first time. And were not. (To be off anywhere by a factor of 2 suggests whoever did do it might well be incompetent.)
For sure and for certain when a Beaufighter went up at night it was equipped with AI. What role it might have been used in while "up there" by whomever I don't know.
As long as we're on night-fighters, though: the two P-38s equipped with radar assigned to the Solomons during the Guadacanal campaign for night-fighter coverage are not in the
UV database, either. Now I understand Gary probably left these out intentionally for the reason
UV isn't articulated to employ single planes in the interception role but rather has to use entire squadrons. For this reason it'd be a good idea to put on the old
WitP wish list the ability not to be able to break down squadrons into three parts but rather by individual planes, for in fact this is quite often what a night-fighter CAP patrol consisted of--one plane. This would also help with allocation of patrol assets on outlying islands for both the Japanese and Allied sides.
Back to durability of P-47's again heh?
Look, the P-47 could very well have been the most durable plane of any description up until that point in history, probably was, and might well be the most durable plane ever up to the advent of the Warthog. It was built like some impossible tank with wing growths and
nobody who's
anybody in aviation with experience in the P-47 and its contemporary aircraft disputes this.
To rate a "Betty" (of all planes!
) anywhere near a P-47 in terms of DURABILITY is just plain s-t-u-p-i-d. But then the
UV database is chock full of s-t-u-p-i-d-i-t-y so why should anyone be surprised?
Of course the designers can always rely on you to both apologize for this s-t-u-p-i-d-i-t-y and try to shout me down simultaneously while they dutifully copy all this s-t-u-p-i-d-i-t-y over to
WitP in an effort to keep the Aussies on this board sweet, or so you've told me, and I guess that's what passes for enlightened game-development management philosophy these days.
Good show all around.
You still don't know if Japanese durabilty is the same as allied durability.
Now there's intelligence.
(The designer knows the weaopons effects better then you do and assigns durabilty based on things you know nothing of. You might as well post "P-47 and Betty are both given 2 wings"
In combat the P-47 has a much better survial rate compared to Betty. That is purpose of ratings. If Allied weapons (4 or more .30cal or .50 cal weapons ) are compared to Japanese weapons (2x7.7mm 12.7mm 20mm) And these rating are what decide durabilty your argument falls flat on its face.
I have a hard time finding fault with things I can see. I can't see you don't have the same problem. You don't know what the numbers mean or how they interact. Yet still here you are blowing your horn to the same old tune.
Why don't you go take a long nap and then buy the game when it is released.
(You are the one person I am certain can't wait to get his hands on WITP just to tear it apart) So just take deep breaths and wait. Someday you can log on and proudly proclaim "See I told you, it sucks, see I was right, see" Only everyone will be off playing and having a great time.
Whatever, Mogami. Happily march to your grave a stupid, ineffective and obstructionist man--yet a "hero" on these boards--and don't forget to collect your free copy of
WitP for your trouble.
For my part, I'll continue to point out how factually balled-up this project is, point out why it's factually balled up, point out how it might become something factually better in
spite of your involvement.
