Matrix Games Forums

It's WAD, but the influential designer is a hot pilot, not an aeronautical engineer. In reality, lower had an advantage at target acquisition, higher's dive advantage reached saturation at about 4000-5000 feet superior altitude, and anything higher than that was delayed in intercepting.

I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots.

ORIGINAL: herwin
I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots.

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

It's WAD, but the influential designer is a hot pilot, not an aeronautical engineer. In reality, lower had an advantage at target acquisition, higher's dive advantage reached saturation at about 4000-5000 feet superior altitude, and anything higher than that was delayed in intercepting.

I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots.

Yes, but that "hot pilot" is dealing in reality based upon experience, not theory. Nothing against your father-in-law but test pilots didn't necessarily make the best fighter pilots. They just happened to have superb flying skills which weren't always based on the tactics or external situational awareness needed to be effective in air-air combat.

This debate is about the effectiveness of high altitude sweeps once the target has been aquired so target acquisition has already taken place. And I do agree that the greater the difference in altitude, the longer it takes for interception to take place thereby giving the defender a greater chance to prepare and evade. Plus an aircraft approaching terminal dive velocity is not able to maneuver as well as an aircraft at slower speeds.

In my game, Brad occasionally conducts a high altitude sweep with his Hurris and P-40s. Initially, I attempted to match his altitude as best I could but was taking losses on the order of 2 or 3:1. I changed my CAP altitude to one that gives me the best MVR rating advantage over his aircraft and losses have dropped to roughly 1:1. The jury is still out on this though as he doesn't routinely sweep. He still gets the benefit of the bounce but once the bounce is over, my higher MVR rating increases my ability to knock down some of his aircraft plus my aircraft remain in a better position to intercept any bombers.

Chez

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: herwin
I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots.

Wow Harry, that's totally cool! What was his name, and when was he on payroll?

My little Wisconsin LLC has done some interesting subcontract work for Bell-Boeing and Boeing-Sikorsky in the last couple years - sensors, not airplanes - but we have to meet and greet with the fat-cats. Corporate dinner small-talk is so boring and I would love to mention to Sorrentino or Marsh - 'I know someone who's father was one of your test pilots back in (whenever)' - way more fun than the usual.

What planes did he fly? Which fields did he fly out of? Gosh, this is nice to know.

ORIGINAL: herwin
Robert Dickey flew the XF8B out of Seattle. When Pearl Harbor happened, he was a reserve naval aviator, but Boeing insisted on keeping him. Something about good test pilots being harder to find than good fighter pilots.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: herwin
Robert Dickey flew the XF8B out of Seattle. When Pearl Harbor happened, he was a reserve naval aviator, but Boeing insisted on keeping him. Something about good test pilots being harder to find than good fighter pilots.

Excellent !! Must have been step-father, yes? I'm taking a trip back east in 2 weeks for family reasons - will be seeing the "influential designer" on the way out. Coming back, will be doing the great circle through DC, St Louis, Colorado Springs, and Mojave. Probably won't see Sorrentino, but will see D'Arcy Marsh for sure. I'll be sure and mention it.

ORIGINAL: herwin
Diane's dad--my father-in-law. My dad was an EOD tech in the ETO. Fought in the lines at Mortain and Bastogne, but usually worked as a gunsmith when he wasn't dealing with unexploded ordnance.

ORIGINAL: michaelm
If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC.

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Single-engine aircraft flying at higher than 80% of their maximum altitude (as stated in the scenario file) will cause more additional fatigue on their pilots as they enter combat. The fatigue is based on distance flown from its base to the point of combat.
Not sure when this changed from the original fixed 25K setting to a more variable one.

The extra fatigue should impact the pilot skill in following combat.

If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: michaelm
If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC.

I agree but the trick is to obtain the data...

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Single-engine aircraft flying at higher than 80% of their maximum altitude (as stated in the scenario file) will cause more additional fatigue on their pilots as they enter combat. The fatigue is based on distance flown from its base to the point of combat.
Not sure when this changed from the original fixed 25K setting to a more variable one.

The extra fatigue should impact the pilot skill in following combat.

If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC.

Hi,

Could you check that planes flying high would actually gain meaningful amount of extra fatigue? It doesn't seem to be very large amount, but I haven't really tested it. It might be worth adjusting the fatigue amounts up, since really high-flying was apparently really stressing for pilot in single-engined fighters.

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Extract of Commander USS Yorktown official AAR for Battle of Midway. CAP section summary.

"It is believed that the Combat Air Patrol should be placed at such an altitude that the pilots are not required to use oxygen while on patrol. It is felt that 10,000 feet is a satisfactory altitude, for from there they can be vectored out satisfactorily to intercept either low or high flying bogies. It has the additional advantage of being less tiring on the pilot, as he is more comfortable at a lower altitude and is not inconvenienced by having to wear an oxygen mask. In addition, too much time is wasted in having a CAP come down from 18,000 feet by the controlling fighter director. A low flying bogey was picked up and part of the CAP had to be brought down to investigate. By the time they got down the bogey had disappeared off the screen. The Yorktown maintained her CAP at 10,000 feet and successfully intercepted all bogies except for the one mentioned above."

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm totally happy with it being abstracted. I just mean that there are various altitude complaints out there and knowing if this is (abstractly) accounted for would help with those.

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm totally happy with it being abstracted. I just mean that there are various altitude complaints out there and knowing if this is (abstractly) accounted for would help with those.

It's not going to help with the complaints if the complainers still think its broken. [;)]