Matrix Games Forums

I was wondering if it was possible to update aircraft names of an existing game, ie. the save file itself? I play the Japanese in a PBEM, and I'm already sick of all the Allied-given names almost all my aircraft have. (And the B-339, its a 239 damnit! <-- looks like I was wrong with this one!) [:D]

Probably not, I know.

You can always make the changes, it won't hurt anything but I have found for the allied planes they did a pretty good job in the research department. (I don't play the axis side but I assume they are egually correct.)

Going through the aircraft data, I didnt find too many oddities, other than why for example P-51 has greater durability than Spitfires, but now knowing what all the data is used for and how, I wouldnt want to change anything. Except maybe the 4Es... And the "nicknames" for Jap planes. Hayabusa, Shoki, Hayate, Shiden, Raiden etc. instead of Oscar, Tojo, Frank, George and Jack.

ORIGINAL: Erkki

I was wondering if it was possible to update aircraft names of an existing game, ie. the save file itself? I play the Japanese in a PBEM, and I'm already sick of all the Allied-given names almost all my aircraft have. (And the B-339, its a 239 damnit! <-- looks like I was wrong with this one!) [:D]

Probably not, I know.

Um, the Brewster B-239 was the export version of the F2A-1. The B-339 was the export version of the F2A-2 and F2A-3. The only air force that operated the B-239 was Finland. The RAF, Dutch, and later RAAF (ex Dutch Buffaloes) were all B-339s based on the F2A-2 or F2A-3.

Why do you think the Spitfire shouldn't have a lower durability than the P-51? Historically the P-51 could absorb more damage than a Spitfire could. The P-51 was a beefier airframe than the Spitfire.

Bill

Fuel tanks in both wings and fuselage, both spit and 51 with the very same engine with a very vulnerable liquid cooling(not that it was any less vulnerable than, say, the ones in Ki 61 or 109), laminar flow wings that make landings in side/cross wind more difficult, let alone when damaged. Combine that with higher wing loading and higher stall stall speed...

Heard and read quite the opposite of P-51's durability here, I think only the gear was tougher, but on the other hand, it had to be as the 51 was a lot heavier machine.

The P-51 was definitely a tougher plane to fly.&nbsp; It was one of the toughest planes to fly of the era.&nbsp; The fuel tanks were self sealing with nitrogen injection which dramatically reduced the fire risk.&nbsp; The P-51 was very tough to fly with the fuselage tank full, so it was the first tank burned up.&nbsp; The Spitfire's main fuel tank was right in front of the cockpit and early versions didn't have self sealing tanks.&nbsp; Many Spitfire pilots were burned from ruptured fuel tanks.

The reason the P-51 was more durable was because it was a larger plane and had heavier construction.&nbsp; Look at the cross section of the wings of the two fighters.&nbsp; The P-51 had a much larger wing that could accommodate 6 0.50 guns and it had fuel tanks in the wings.&nbsp; The Spitfire could barely accommodate the guns in th wings, the first cannon equipped Spits had gun reliability problems because of the shoehorn job done to fit the cannons in.

I do grant the P-51 was a tougher plane to fly.&nbsp; Of the top fighters of WWII probably the two easiest handling were the Spit and the F6F.&nbsp; But ease of handling does not equate to durability.&nbsp; The P-51 was more stoutly built airplane.

Bill

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The P-51 was definitely a tougher plane to fly.  It was one of the toughest planes to fly of the era.  The fuel tanks were self sealing with nitrogen injection which dramatically reduced the fire risk.  The P-51 was very tough to fly with the fuselage tank full, so it was the first tank burned up.  The Spitfire's main fuel tank was right in front of the cockpit and early versions didn't have self sealing tanks.  Many Spitfire pilots were burned from ruptured fuel tanks.

The game does not have those first Spitfires... Vc trop and Seafires(modified MK V) are the first.

The reason the P-51 was more durable was because it was a larger plane and had heavier construction.  Look at the cross section of the wings of the two fighters.  The P-51 had a much larger wing that could accommodate 6 0.50 guns and it had fuel tanks in the wings.  The Spitfire could barely accommodate the guns in th wings, the first cannon equipped Spits had gun reliability problems because of the shoehorn job done to fit the cannons in.

Larger plane is also easier to hit. A HE cannon shell going off anywhere in a plane can piere the cockpit, engine and/or coolant system with shrapnel. Spitfire also had a larger wing, though the wing area diff. is only 0,7m². With the fuel tanks in the wings, and the fuselage fuel tank drained first, there is a lot more mass thrown about, and a lot more stress to the wing in rolls and especially turns. The P-51 also had a very thin(laminar flow) wing, and on average only 2,5 of the P-51B/C's 4 guns would work in combat for the same reason(the inner guns were installed tilted), before a fix was found in early summer 44...

I do grant the P-51 was a tougher plane to fly.  Of the top fighters of WWII probably the two easiest handling were the Spit and the F6F.  But ease of handling does not equate to durability.  The P-51 was more stoutly built airplane.

Yeah, but maybe it should. Now apparently only factors that effect the damaged plane flying home are weather, exp of the pilot and range... I would imagine a damaged Corsair be much, much more difficult to land than say, an F6F, and a Zero with a fuel tank hit in 80%+ of the cases getting nowhere near home, if the fight wasnt over the carriers. Wonder if anyone knows if the durability/armour actually do effect it?

The P-51 could take much more G stress than the Spitfire.&nbsp; The first g-suits were issued to P-51 pilots because of losses from blackouts in combat.&nbsp; After they started using g-suits P-51s were coming back to base with rivets popped out on the wings.&nbsp;

I have never read that Spitfire pilots were ever issued g-suits.&nbsp;

And the cross section of the P-51's wing was thicker than the Spitfire's.&nbsp; And by a larger airframe, the P-51's silhouette size is about the same for the two aircraft.&nbsp; The length of the fuselage and the wing length were similar, and as you pointed out the wing area of the Spitfire was only a little bit more.&nbsp; The P-51 was a beefier airplane.&nbsp; The empty weight of the P-51D was 7100 lbs and the Spitfire V was only 5000 lbs.&nbsp; The P-51 was 40% heavier.&nbsp; That translated into an airframe that could take a lot more punishment and survive.

When the Spitfire was modified for use on carriers, it's lifespan was relatively short for a carrier fighter.&nbsp; It was not uncommon for the tail to fail during landing when it caught the hook.&nbsp; The Sea Hurricane had the same problem.&nbsp; The P-51 was investigated by the Navy as a carrier fighter and a navailized P-51 made several landing on the Shangrila in Sept 44.&nbsp; (At the same time the B-25 was also evaluated as a carrier bomber.)&nbsp; The navy found the P-51 to be rugged enough for carrier use, but the issue of spares parts eventually killed the idea, plus between Corsairs and Hellcats they had enough carrier fighters and both those planes used the same engines, which made the spare parts issues a lot easier.

Radial engine planes were found to be better for carrier use by the Navy and they standardized on radials in the early 30s.&nbsp; Though they thought the P-51 would make a good carrier fighter, they thought standardization was better to keep the maximum number of aircraft operational.

Carrier landings are the toughest routine thing a plane has to do.&nbsp; Most versions of the Seafire were too fragile, though were used anyway because they were a great fighter.&nbsp; The Mustang was considered tough enough to do the job by the USN.&nbsp; The Mustang never did any extended service on carriers, so we can't point to any long term use data like we can with the Seafire, but it appears the Navy thought the airframe was up to the punishment of carrier landings.

Yes, the early Spitfire's were not used in the Pacific and all versions in the game used the nitrogen in the fuel tanks that were in use with the P-51 too.&nbsp; Fire was not as severe a problem by at least the middle of the Mk V production run.

Bill

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The P-51 could take much more G stress than the Spitfire.  The first g-suits were issued to P-51 pilots because of losses from blackouts in combat.  After they started using g-suits P-51s were coming back to base with rivets popped out on the wings. 

I have never read that Spitfire pilots were ever issued g-suits. 

Source for this? I dont think its a very good sign if rivets start popping out. I do know that some US P-51 squadrons received G-suits nearing the end of the war, but dont think the reason was that the P-51 could pull more "G"s.

And the cross section of the P-51's wing was thicker than the Spitfire's.  And by a larger airframe, the P-51's silhouette size is about the same for the two aircraft.  The length of the fuselage and the wing length were similar, and as you pointed out the wing area of the Spitfire was only a little bit more.  The P-51 was a beefier airplane.  The empty weight of the P-51D was 7100 lbs and the Spitfire V was only 5000 lbs.  The P-51 was 40% heavier.  That translated into an airframe that could take a lot more punishment and survive.

If there is more mass for the same wing area, more AoA is needed to give the same vertical component of lift and keep the plane airborne. And in turn, to achieve an acceleration, the AoA and wing stress to achieve the same lift, for the same "G", is greater. To hold a bank angle in a turn, a P-51 needs that 40% more "G" to not drop altitude, with the same 40% more stress. The same force that keeps the plane in the turn has a counter force in the wings, F=ma.

WW2 aircraft, or any modern one actually, is not exactly designed to take damage... If you look at what they have eaten, there is not much space a bullet can go through and not hit something important, even in P-51, P-47, F4U, F6F. Shooting from behind, the shooting aircraft can hit it all: fuel tanks, pilots seat, supercharger, the oil radiator and coolant vents, hydraulics, wing spars. The aluminum skin doesnt stop even a rifle cal round. A single lucky 20mm hit and they're all down in flames. I dont see how, in critical systems or stuctural integrity, a P-51 is any more tough than a Spitfire, especially if they receive those hits while turning, when a single hit in the wing can snap it. The radial engined, air cooled, F4U and P-47 specifically made for carriers and to carry huge payloads, yes, they were much "beefier".

When the Spitfire was modified for use on carriers, it's lifespan was relatively short for a carrier fighter.  It was not uncommon for the tail to fail during landing when it caught the hook.  The Sea Hurricane had the same problem.  The P-51 was investigated by the Navy as a carrier fighter and a navailized P-51 made several landing on the Shangrila in Sept 44.  (At the same time the B-25 was also evaluated as a carrier bomber.)  The navy found the P-51 to be rugged enough for carrier use, but the issue of spares parts eventually killed the idea, plus between Corsairs and Hellcats they had enough carrier fighters and both those planes used the same engines, which made the spare parts issues a lot easier.

....

Carrier landings are the toughest routine thing a plane has to do. Most versions of the Seafire were too fragile, though were used anyway because they were a great fighter. The Mustang was considered tough enough to do the job by the USN. The Mustang never did any extended service on carriers, so we can't point to any long term use data like we can with the Seafire, but it appears the Navy thought the airframe was up to the punishment of carrier landings.

This probably had a lot to do with the landing gear and the arrestor hook, for both aircraft.

Back to my original question, is it possible to get rid of the Allied nicknames of the Japanese aircraft mid-pbem, anyone?

You can't change scenario data after a scenario starts. You can create your own custom scenario with whatever you want in it and play that, but you would have to start over.

ORIGINAL: Erkki
WW2 aircraft, or any modern one actually, is not exactly designed to take damage...

Actually a lot of thought goes into designing damage resistance into modern aircraft, that's why we have multiply redundant systems and why the components of those are carefully placed to try and ensure that one hit cannot take out more than one lane of the redundant system. WWII-era design wasn't as advanced, but was starting down the path towards where we are today.