Matrix Games Forums

It is very clear that having an altitude advantage Is decisive in air combat. The problem is flying in the stratosphere with internal combustion engines.
First the game uses theoretical service ceilings as maximum operational ceilings. That is a problem all by itself. But, as I have posted numerous threads the problem for WWII is flying above 28K feet. Physiologically the oxygen affinity curve gets to the point where not only is there a problem of not enough oxygen , but oxygen starts leaving the body. At this point sealed masked are involved. At about 31K special oxygen heaters are involved for any flight duration longer than a few minutes. Otherwise the exhalation moisture starts freezing as well as any moisture in the equipment. At 41K feet for any flight longer than a minute or so [given sealed oxygen masks and heaters ask any Lear pilot their worst nightmare … depressurization at 41K ..]… partial pressure flight suits are involved or the bends are a real possibility. Just like compressing nitrogen in the deep sea [high pressure] and then coming to the surface [lower pressure] -- now we are going from the surface [higher pressure than 41K feet] to very high altitudes and very low air pressures. As pilots found out in WWII the plane might do it, but the pilots could not sustain flights at stratospheric altitudes. Full pressurized suits are required at 50K feet.

There is one other problem. It might be cold up there but the lack of air density prevents convection cooling. Believe it or not, a turbocharged aircraft runs unbelievably hot at altitudes above 24K feet. The solution is to run rich and let evaporating unspent fuel cool the cylinders and the turbo-exhaust blades. But high altitude flight in a turbocharged aircraft takes a lot of maintenance that dramatically goes up after 28K feet. [Between 18K - 28K it is a real problem lowering TBO's by as much as 1000 hours].

So, I propose increasing operational losses by some very small amount [5%?] above 28K feet to 31K feet. Between 31K – 33K increase operational losses by 10% - 20% by a die roll. Between 33K and 41K increase the probability of an operational loss by 50%. Above 41K start die-rolling for the loss of the pilot and subsequently the platform.

Thus one can choose to fly stratospheric sweeps but it has a cost..

Thoughts?

The game does not use the theoretical service ceilings as maximum operational ceilings. That was covered long ago by developers. Fatigue and thereby operational losses are already increased for high altitude missions. In-game there are already some counters to high-altitude sweeps and several players have written about that. YMMV. [8D]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The game does not use the theoretical service ceilings as maximum operational ceilings. That was covered long ago by developers. Fatigue and thereby operational losses are already increased for high altitude missions. In-game there are already some counters to high-altitude sweeps and several players have written about that. YMMV. [8D]

Ok then why are the home rules still preached to use 2nd maneuver band .[&:]

BTW) The ceilings listed in the database are all theoretical service ceilings not the aircraft's operational celings ...

For those interested: Service ceiling == 100' per minute climb Operational == still maintining a 500' per minute climb and/or 20 degree bank angle ..take an aircraft up to service ceiling and yank and bank .. that plane is coming down in a flat spin ...so at least in my observations aircraft are still quite capable for dogfighting way above operational ceilings [;)]

BTW) In my game Zero's are doing very nicely at 31K feet [;)] I do not see increased operational losses ..

Ok then why are the home rules still preached to use 2nd maneuver band .

Because theres two different general opinions on stratosweep (very old discusion btw...):

Some think it is overpowered and so implement above HR.
That solution also fullfills a second task: to restrict initial ACM to lower altitude.

Others think this is unnessesary. You can counter using layered CAP and the right mix of planes, defeats through sweeps are because you lack
numbers, or plane/pilot quality, or both.

I belong to the second group FWIIW.

BTW) The ceilings listed in the database are all theoretical service ceilings not the aircraft's operational celings ...

For those interested: Service ceiling == 100' per minute climb Operational == still maintining a 500' per minute climb and/or 20 degree bank angle ..take an aircraft up to service ceiling and yank and bank .. that plane is coming down in a flat spin ...so at least in my observations aircraft are still quite capable for dogfighting way above operational ceilings

BTW) In my game Zero's are doing very nicely at 31K feet I do not see increased operational losses ..

They are, and you will practically never see a combat taking place at this altitude in game, it might be initiated by one side from a specific altitude, but
as the planes meet, the altitude they are fighting at depends on additional factors.

Your Zekes are doing great at 31k because you got 80+ exp pilots sitting at the controls.

In case it interests you: the guy who did the main work in this area flies F/A-18s from carrier decks for a living. I would bet he is competent enough to know
the difference between service and operational ceiling and has a reason about he used service ceiling. [;)]

Couple of points:

1. There are already fatigue and other penalties for flying your planes at more than 75% of the in-game listed ceiling.
For those who doubt the effects of fatigue I'd point out that in-game I've been more than able to match P-51H sweeps when they come in at maximum altitude and long range ( thus maximising fatigue ) with significantly inferior airplanes.

2. There are several AARs in which players defeated enemy air forces flying stratospheric sweeps including a couple in which the IJNAF and IJAAF were destroyed as going concerns by April 1942.
I, personally, came up with a system of layered CAP which was forcing double and triple losses on A6M2s and Oscars sweeping Palembang from Singapore in February 1942 even though not a single plane type I had was either:
a) able to fly higher than the sweepers
b) generally adjudged to be superior.

This isn't to laud my play or anything but just to point out that players have handily defeated stratospheric sweeps in-game previously even before the days in whih they got increased fatigue etc for engaging in them. As such I wonder if the failure of many to defeat them is a reflection on them not adopting the optimal approach rather than some inherent unbeatability of the high altitude sweep.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
In case it interests you: the guy who did the main work in this area flies F/A-18s from carrier decks for a living.

And he is currently deployed <again>. Stay safe Ian.