C-47 vs. C-46 in RHS

[witpqs]

Sid,

Something for consideration for later when you tweak RHS.

I've done a little research (on the Internet) on the C-46 Commando versus the C-47 Skytrain. You'll recall I've been curious about the differences in range and cargo carrying capacity, as the values in Stock, CHS, and RHS all vary.

I found several sources, and your prior comment about it being difficult to nail down for this case is certainly accurate. Still, I believe the weight of available information shows that the C-46 had a somewhat longer range, and definitely greater cargo capacity. Below I list the sites I consulted that were of any use at all. I omitted a few that were totally unhelpful.

The best recommendation that I can make is that:

a) the C-47 cargo capacity be reduced to 6,000 lbs and the C-46 cargo capacity be increased to 10,000 lbs

and

b) the range of the C-46 be set to roughly a couple of hundred miles greater than the range of the C-47.

Sorry about the way the tables below look but the fonts available on the forum won't allow them to align properly.


Info follows

C-46

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=171

http://www.warbirdalley.com/c46.htm

http://rwebs.net/ghostsqd/c-46.htm

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/c-46_commando.pl

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avc46.html
- This source cited: AMERICAN WARPLANES OF WORLD WAR II, edited by David Donald, Airtime Publishing, 1995.

---CURTISS C-46 COMMANDO:
---_____________________---_________________---_______________________

---spec-----------------metric-----------------english
---_____________________---_________________---_______________________

---wingspan----------------32.92 meters--------108 feet
---length------------------23.27 meters--------76 feet 4 inches
---height------------------6.63 meters---------21 feet 9 inches

---empty weight------------13,290 kilograms----29,300 pounds
---max loaded weight-------22,680 kilograms----50,000 pounds

---max speed at altitude---378 KPH-------------235 MPH / 205 KT
---service ceiling---------6,700 meters--------22,000 feet
---range-------------------2,900 kilometers----1,800 MI / 1,565 NMI
---_____________________---_________________---_______________________

"In addition to 40 troops, loads for the C-46A included 33 stretchers with attendants, or 4,550 kilograms (10,000 pounds) of cargo. The Commando was the largest twin-engine aircraft operated by the USAAF, and it fact its wingspan was 1.2 meters (4 feet) longer than that of a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. The Commando's fully loaded weight was almost twice as much as that of a C-47."



C-47

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=188

http://www.warbirdalley.com/c47.htm

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/c-47_skytrain.pl

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avc47.html
- This source cited: AMERICAN WARPLANES OF WORLD WAR II, edited by David Donald, Airtime Publishing, 1995.

---DOUGLAS C-47A DAKOTA:
---_____________________---_________________---_______________________

---spec--------------------metric--------------english
---_____________________---_________________---_______________________

---wingspan----------------29 meters-----------95 feet
---wing area---------------91.69 sq meters-----987 sq feet
---length------------------19.6 meters---------64 feet 2 inches
---height------------------5.16 meters---------16 feet 11 inches

---empty weight------------7,700 kilograms-----16,970 pounds
---max loaded weight-------11,800 kilograms----26,000 pounds

---maximum speed-----------370 KPH-------------230 MPH / 200 KT
---cruise speed------------298 KPH-------------185 MPH / 160 KT
---service ceiling---------7,070 meters--------23,200 feet
---range-------------------2,410 kilometers----1,500 MI / 1,305 NMI
---_____________________---_________________---_______________________

"In the cargo role, the interior was fitted with pulleys for moving up to a total of 2,720 kilograms (6,000 pounds) of cargo. For paratroop operations, the interior was fitted with 28 fold-down bucket seats hinged to the the walls. In the medical evacuation ("medevac") role, the interior was fitted with accommodations for 18 stretchers and three medics. Six parachute containers could be attached to racks under the fuselage and released for airdrop supply missions."

[el cid again]

1) The general scuttlebutt of USAAF people (whom I grew up with - my parents both served in USAAF and met and married there) was that the C-46 was superior at heavy lifting - particularly over mountains (e.g. the hump).

2) The data you provided is not useful for us because it fails the critical requirement: ONLY data in the form
"range = distance x at cruising speed y with payload z" is something we can use to calculate the game ranges with.

3) WITP loading for transports (and bombers pretending to be transports) is a bit wierd and probably invalid in any case. They divide numbers in a somewhat arbitrary way.

4) WITP max load data is only used to calculate the airfield requirement - theoretically. For air transports it also gets used - probably - as indicated in 3 above.

5) WITP ranges are not right either. They let air transports move actual cargo to half of transfer range - which is quite wrong. So we adjust this to make it 42% - that is we reduce transfer range so half of it is really 42% of what the transfer range should be - on the basis that operational range matters more than transfer range (a Forum choice).

6) Ideally air transports will be modified to behave like bombers - in which case what matters is normal load at normal range. We CAN adjust things so the range is right - IF we ever figure out what normal range - and extended range - should be? For practical purposes, for a bomber or transport, extended range = 42% of theoretical transfer range and normal range = 33% of the same value. This is achieved only in RHS by manipulating data - code wants extended range to be 33% and normal range to be 25% - which is correct for fighters. We leave fighters alone and adjust bombers and transports so they get to the right values. But ONLY the ranges are right for transports - and we do not know the payloads for 42% of transfer range of either type. Get us that and we can make the cargo relatively correct in any case.

FYI a review of the data indicates we have a problem with the endurance of the C-46. I will see what can be done about that. But I have no cargo data except maximum - and that of course is not what is used normally. The only conflict with your data is that ALL sources I have say the C-47 max load is 10,000 pounds - not 6000.

[el cid again]

Some data:

the Japanese version of the C-47 carried 10,550 pounds cargo

IF we consider passengers vice weight of cargo - a C-47 carried 70% of the load of a C-46 (28 vice 40 troops).
IF we say a C-46 carries 10,000 pounds, that would make the pro rated C-47 load 7,000 pounds.

The cruising speed of a C-46 might be 235 mph vice 183 mph. I think 183 mph gives you the ultra long ferry range - about 3200 miles - while 235 mph gives you normal range of 1800 miles WITH cargo. Increasing cruising speed will increase game range.

The ratio of ranges is - for practical missions - 6/5 - that is 1800 miles vice 1500 miles.

Since code gives us half the range for cargo and we want only 42% that would mean 756 miles for the C-46 and 630 miles for the 647. But you don't get fractions of 60 miles - so that translates to 12 hexes for the C-46 and 10 hexes for the C-47 (practical transport range) = 24 hexes transfer (C-46) and 20 hexes transfer (C-47). Range would be 60% of that of a C-47 (900 miles).

Here I have a problem in RHS data - because we went with a single source for all planes for consistency sake:

it shows 16.775 hex range for C-46 and 37.874 hexes for the C-47 !

Increasing the cruising speed to 235 mph gives us 21.541 hexes - closer to the right value - but we still need to adjust endurance upward (by about 1/7) for the C-46 and downward (by a lot) for the C-47. Adjusting cargo to 7,000 pounds works for typical missions - but results in other versions of the C-47 being much more efficient in game terms. Possibly we should rate them based on troops as well?


Revisions for C-47 might be 7,000 pounds load and 390 minutes endurance.

Corresponding C-46 values would be 10,000 pounds load and 376 minutes endurance.

Another way to go is the typical military value per man = 100 kg = 4 metric tons for the C-46 ( 8800 pounds) and 2.8 metric tons 6160 pounds for the C-47. That would force us to do something similar for all other transports - rate them by men = 1/10 metric ton. For technical reasons, we should stay with max load - it affects airfield requirements. A C-32 carries 18 men or 45% of the load of a C-46 = 4500 pounds - using ratio standard - otherwise 1800 kg = 3960 pounds cargo. A C-54 carried 42 passengers = 105% of the C-46 or 10,500 pounds (by the relative weight system) or 4.2 metric tons (by the man system) 9240 pounds. C-87 is a problem = there are only 20 seats - but it carried up to 10,000 pounds (and was officially rated for only 8800 - go figure). So we probably rate it = to a C-46 for cargo - by whatever system. All transports would need to be reviewed - although probably most only will change the cargo rating. Looks like C-47 goes down, C-87 goes up, C-32 goes up.