Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 62

Thread: Formulae and Stats for Unofficial A/C

  1. #1

    Default Formulae and Stats for Unofficial A/C

    Fast : 340+
    Medium 315 +
    Slow 290+
    V.Slow 265+

    Fast - Wing Loading - A 25 , B 31+Slats, E 34+Turbo, F if 370+, H if 360+, G otherwise
    Medium - C 24, D 31
    Slow - K 36
    V.Slow - L 19, J 24

    Conclusions:
    D520 should be G not D.
    A6M2 should be C* - add 90 degree turn.

    Other A/C

    Hayabusa I (not II) - C* but fragile no armour
    Ki-27 - L
    Fokker D.XXI - K
    Buffalo I - K
    F2A3 - D but fragile, no armour
    Morane 406 - D (probably why the 520 was misplaced, 406 stats used)

    I've deliberately missed out the I deck, as it's an "all dive bombers use this" situation. Neither speed nor wing loading makes any difference.

  2. #2

    Default

    Thanks Zoe look forward to more data

  3. #3

    Default

    What do this values represent and how did you calculate them?
    Last edited by Kaiser; 08-20-2012 at 04:38.

  4. #4

    Default

    Speed - in mph
    Wing loading - in lb/sq ft.

    Thus an aircraft with speed over 315 mph but less than 340 mph with a wing loading of "about" 31 lb/ft^2 - say between 28 and 34 - will use the D deck.

    The Bf109 is something of an exception, its slats gave it an effective wing loading AT LOW SPEED of around 28. But the Spitfire's elliptical wings meant that at high speed, it had less drag, and could out-turn a Bf109 even going at slow speed. Spitfire I's had a wing loading <25, but as soon as they added bulletproof windscreens etc that crept up to around 26.

    E,F,G, and H depend more on speed than wing loading, they're all higher wing loading aircraft than the Spit or Bf109.

    Hence E is good for aircraft with relatively low wingloading (~33) and a turbocharger, F for really, really fast high wing loading (~36) aircraft, H for fast high wing loading (~36) aircraft, and G for those relatively low wing loading aircraft (~33) with an ineffective supercharger, or no supercharger at all. There may be some roll rate component in there too.

    The difference in game play between all 6 speed aircraft is relatively minor. It's subtle. A matter of size of sideslips, and whether these are steep or not.

    The A6M2 "Zero" has been treated very badly, turning as if it was an A6M5 with additional skin thickening, clipped wings (higher wing loading), and self-sealing fueltanks. On the other hand, its damage points are consistent with the tougher A6M5 too. In fact, it should have a 90' turn added (wing loading 22) at low speed, but only about 10 damage points. Same with the Hayabusa I, wing loading 23, but no armour. The stats for the Hayabusa II are about right, this had armour on that decreased turn ability.

    I'll have to contact Andrea on this one. He asked me some time ago if anyone had worked out a formula, similar to the WWI Official Unofficial stats. At a guess, I think the stats for the A6M5 were used for the A6M2, and the Morane 406 stats for the Dewoitine 520, and he suspected those mistakes had been made.

    There's really not a whole heap of difference between decks A...H, nor should there be. Differences, yes, but not huge ones, subtle ones.

    The only addition I'd make is to allow over-diving for some aircraft, but not others.
    Last edited by Zoe Brain; 08-21-2012 at 23:35.

  5. #5

  6. #6

    Default

    The key was the data at http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/att...4&d=1332521092 detailing what the manoeuvre decks really meant, plus my own research on wing loading and speeds. I've given Kaiser some well-deserved rep for that.

  7. #7

    Dom S's Avatar
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    1,249
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    Just a couple of minor notes from a Brewster Buffalo anorak....

    The F2A-3 *did* have armour and self-sealing tanks. (Indeed that was the problem with it - grossly overloaded.) Probably does just scrape into the D deck's speed band though; in theory so should the Buffalo Mark I, but the clapped out engines on the latter merit the difference, so I'd agree with your K deck there.

    The F2A-1 (as used by the Finns) and F2A-2 didn't have armour, although the Finns added a modest amount in their various overhauls. Finnish Buffs should probably have a C deck - their wing loading was down at about 25, versus 31 or so for the overloaded disasters the Brits and Yanks flew in the far east.... The problem here though is that they were actually slower than the heavier types; strictly speaking they ought to be in the K deck's speed band, but there's absolutely no way they should have a K deck.... In the absence of an "agile" "slow" deck, the agile has to trump the slow imo - they were insanely successful aircraft after all....

    Dutch ones are awkward as they fall squarely in between, with a loading between 27 and 28. I'd be tempted to at least give the better-engined B-339Ds a C deck as well, and the 339Cs a D deck - both versions were fast enough to be in the "medium" speed band. (Dutch Buffs were unarmoured though, so low HP again, but pilots really liked the handling of the D model....)

    Dom.
    Last edited by Dom S; 08-20-2012 at 05:46.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom S View Post
    The F2A-1 (as used by the Finns) and F2A-2 didn't have armour,
    That's what I get for making a typo. I meant F2A-2 not F2A-3.

    Given that many F2A-3s and Buffalo I's were stripped of a lot of weight, armour etc to give them a fighting chance, I think that no matter what you call it, if it's got a lot of hit points, it uses K, if only a few, D. I think 900 lbs were taken off some Buffalo I's.

    Agree about the Dutch Buffs (2nd batch IIRC) being a boundary case. Maybe D with a little less toughness than the K ones, but more than most D's. It really depended on the engine model, from memory a third had the same 1000hp G105 that the RAAF had, the rest the 1200hp (1850 model? ). Though I think some 1200hp versions ended up in RAAF service from a batch the NEI didn't receive. Must look it up...

    In RAAF service, the 50 cals almost never worked, and lubricant in the .30s in the nose clouded the windscreen after only a few shots, making aimed fire impossible.

    With decent engines, and appropriate weaponry - .50 cals with strong wing mountings so they were able to feed rounds - it could have as effective as it was in Dutch hands, if not Finnish ones.


    Anyway... the point is that now you know how to figure out which decks to use, given wing loading and speed. Determining exactly what model had what is the next thing you have to do, and different equipment fits and especially engine types can make a world of difference. Two externally identical aircraft may have very different performances.
    Last edited by Zoe Brain; 08-20-2012 at 06:16.

  9. #9

    Dom S's Avatar
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    1,249
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    That's what I get for making a typo. I meant F2A-2 not F2A-3.

    Given that many F2A-3s and Buffalo I's were stripped of a lot of weight, armour etc to give them a fighting chance, I think that no matter what you call it, if it's got a lot of hit points, it uses K, if only a few, D. I think 900 lbs were taken off some Buffalo I's.
    Yes, but it's unlikely they were actually used in combat that way much if at all - some squadrons experimented with stripping some down, but it seems to have been odd individual aircraft rather than actually being implemented en masse. (Eg. the Super Sports Special, which with everything stripped out and armament reduced to a pair of .30 cals was well on the way to becoming a Ki-43.... )

    Agree about the Dutch Buffs (2nd batch IIRC) being a boundary case. Maybe D with a little less toughness than the K ones, but more than most D's. It really depended on the engine model, from memory a third had the same 1000hp G105 that the RAAF had, the rest the 1200hp (1850 model? ).
    Yep - I struggle with designations, as there were at least three different designation systems for Buffs, but the B-339C had the old G-105 engine, and the 339D the 1,200 hp one. I seem to recall they were unarmoured, but did have self-sealing tanks, so a split the difference on hit points makes sense.
    Though I think some 1200hp versions ended up in RAAF service from a batch the NEI didn't receive. Must look it up...
    Yes and no - the "inherited" ones were B-439s, with all the armour and crap of the British and late US models - they had 1,200 hp, but they were chronically overloaded and utter dogs - K deck at best, and quite possibly a J - they were slooooow.... [EDIT] Definitely J deck - 20 B-439s were ordered with 1,200 hp engines, but were actually downrated to 1,000 due to lack of engine availability. These plus a single 339D wound up in USAAF hands in Australia due to the Dutch East Indies falling before delivery, and most were loaned to the RAAF where they were briefly used for home defence, before winding up as hacks, gunnery trainers and what not. They were given back to the Yanks in '44, which must've made somebody's day....
    In RAAF service, the 50 cals almost never worked, and lubricant in the .30s in the nose clouded the windscreen after only a few shots, making aimed fire impossible.
    Yep - British and ANZAC armourers just didn't master the .50 cal in time (problems with the electrics iirc - dodgy solenoids, as well as no ammo to test them....) so the reliability was terrible. They also liked throwing oil in high temperatures, which was unhelpful to say the least in the far east....

    With decent engines, and appropriate weaponry - .50 cals with strong wing mountings so they were able to feed rounds - it could have as effective as it was in Dutch hands, if not Finnish ones.
    Agreed - the Buff's a perfect example of how to ruin a basically decent aircraft. I always find it telling that British Buffalo pilots would pretty much kill to get themselves a Hurricane instead, while Finnish Buffalo pilots regarded a Hurricane as an easy kill....

    Dom (and his anorak....)
    Last edited by Dom S; 08-20-2012 at 06:55.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom S View Post
    Dom (and his anorak....)
    A well deserved accolade, in my book.

  11. #11

    Dom S's Avatar
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    1,249
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    Thanks - I've been a closet Buffalo fetishist for many years; every now and then the subject pops up and I just can't help myself....

  12. #12

    Default

    Thank you for this. It is very interesting and useful, Zoe. I do not follow your reasoning about the Dewoitine D520 being G rather than D deck, however, because my data books give the Dewoitine's max. speed as 326 - 332 m.p.h..

  13. #13

    Dom S's Avatar
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    1,249
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    It depends on your references, the altitude they were given for, and the engine type. The Vichy D.520s were a bit faster than the pre fall of France ones, thanks to the slightly improved 12Y-49 engine - they should definitely be in the fast band. For aircraft with the older engines it's very borderline, but I'd be inclined to agree with you that the second speed band is the right one; they're generally a few mph shy of the top band.

  14. #14

    Default

    Interesting stuff, Zoe.
    Where would one find wingloading data. I know it's an important value in aircraft performence, but I've not seen it on most data tables.
    Karl

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    Thank you for this. It is very interesting and useful, Zoe. I do not follow your reasoning about the Dewoitine D520 being G rather than D deck, however, because my data books give the Dewoitine's max. speed as 326 - 332 m.p.h..
    My sources say 302 knots TAS, that's 347 mph.

    This one - http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...tine_d520.html - says 332 mph at 18,000 ft with an 850 hp engine, but most production versions had the 935 hp (698 kw) Hispano-Suiza 12Y 45 12-cylinder

    Some sources say it was slower but more nimble than a Bf109E: others that it was almost as fast.

    I'll see if I can find some of the accounts of its use in Syria and Algiers. From (unreliable) memory, it was faster than both Wildcats and Hurricanes, but not as fast as P-40B's. Much faster than 406's, which on reflection should probably be K not D, as should P-36's.

    This is an area that needs a bit more research I think. I'm pretty confident though about the approximate speed bands, less so about the exact differences between E,F,G,H.

  16. #16

    Default

    Looking at the dive bombers

    Ju 87B-2 :
    Max Speed 242 MPH.
    Wing loading
    Empty - 21
    Loaded - 28
    Max Take Off - 32

    Douglas SBD-5
    Max Speed - 255 MPH
    Wing loading
    Empty - 20
    Loaded - 29
    Max Take Off - 33

    Aichi D3A1 Val
    Max Speed - 242 MPH
    Wing loading
    Empty - 14
    Loaded - 19
    Max Take Off - 22

    The "odd one out" is the Val, with a very low wing loading.
    As the war progressed, there were instances when the dive bombers were pressed into duty as fighters in the interceptor role, their maneuverability being enough to allow them to survive in this role
    D3A2 Val

    Max Speed - 267 MPH
    Wing loading
    Empty - 15
    Loaded - 21
    Max Take Off - 24

    A D3A2 in the fighter role should use the J deck.

  17. #17

    Default

    Terriffic!

    On a side note: The Bf109 had combat flaps at the leading edge of the wings (the Hayabusa had something similar). If extended and thus increase the wing area they could turn as fast as the Spitfire. At least according to seasoned pilots. Rookie pilots seem to forget these flaps.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser View Post
    On a side note: The Bf109 had combat flaps at the leading edge of the wings (the Hayabusa had something similar). If extended and thus increase the wing area they could turn as fast as the Spitfire. At least according to seasoned pilots. Rookie pilots seem to forget these flaps.
    Already taken into account:

    Fast - Wing Loading - A 25 , B 31+Slats
    The Bf109 is something of an exception, its slats gave it an effective wing loading AT LOW SPEED of around 28. But the Spitfire's elliptical wings meant that at high speed, it had less drag, and could out-turn a Bf109 even going at slow speed.

  19. #19

    Default

    Ah that's what "slats" are There are still some english words i don't know

  20. #20

    Default

    I am enjoying this thread, hearing about the subtle differences between the planes. Unfortunately I cannot contribute to what I know nothing about, although my learning curve (if I could remember details) is enough to gain me a peg per turn. What does A/C stand for? Keep up the good work. . Kevin

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blauer Baron View Post
    What does A/C stand for?
    In this context, Aircraft.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser View Post
    Ah that's what "slats" are There are still some english words i don't know
    Technische worten sind immer schwer.

    "Slat" means leading-edge flaps that (usually) automatically deploy in a turn. The Bf109 had manually-operated trailing edge flaps too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_edge_slats

    Slats were first developed by Gustav Lachmann in 1918. A crash in August 1917, with a Rumpler C aeroplane on account of stalling caused the idea to be put in a concrete form, and a small wooden model was built in 1917 in Cologne. In 1918, Lachmann presented a patent for leading edge slats in Germany. However, the German patent office at first rejected it as the office did not believe in the possibility of increasing lift by dividing the wing.[4][5]

    Independently of Lachmann, Handley-Page Ltd in Great Britain also developed the slotted wing as a way to postpone stall by reducing the turbulence over the wing at high angles of attack, and applied for a patent in 1919; to avoid a patent challenge, they reached an ownership agreement with Lachmann. That year a De Havilland D.H.9 was fitted with slats and flown.[6] Later a D.H.4 was modified as a monoplane with a large wing fitted with full span leading edge and back ailerons (i.e. what would later be called flaps) that could be deployed in conjunction with the leading edge slats to test improved low speed performance.[7] Several years later, having subsequently taken employment at the Handley-Page aircraft company, Lachmann was responsible for a number of aircraft designs, including the Handley Page Hampden.

    Licensing the design became one of the company's major sources of income in the 1920s. The original designs were in the form of a fixed slot in the front of the wing, a design that was found on a number of STOL aircraft.

    During World War II German aircraft commonly fitted a more advanced version that pushed back flush against the wing by air pressure to reduce drag, popping out when the airflow decreased during slower flight. Notable slats of that time belonged to the German Fieseler Fi 156 Storch. These were similar in design to retractable slats, but were fixed non-retractable slots. The slotted wing allowed this aircraft to take off into a light wind in less than 45 m (150 ft), and land in 18 m (60 ft). Aircraft designed by the Messerschmitt company employed leading-edge slats as a general rule.

  23. #23

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser View Post
    Ah that's what "slats" are There are still some english words i don't know
    It's not just your english, I had never heard of these either! Thanks for the lesson Zoe!

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Where would one find wingloading data. I know it's an important value in aircraft performence, but I've not seen it on most data tables.
    Where it isn't available directly, just divide loaded weight by wing area.

  26. #26

    Default

    So and now?
    Making stats and decks for unofficial aircrafts of course

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser View Post
    So and now?
    Making stats and decks for unofficial aircrafts of course
    Starting with aircraft currently available in 1/200, and not on Ares' list of forecast new releases.

    Candidates:

    Ki-27
    Buffalos of various kinds
    Ki43-I
    Fokker D.XXI
    Martin Maryland
    Martin B-10 (This one's a problem, it's just too slow....)
    Bf109F
    Blenheims I and IV

  28. #28

    Default

    Defiants?
    Ju88?
    Do17?

    These plus those available/to be available and the Blenheims will sort out the Battle of Britain period (ignoring a few italian bombers)

  29. #29

    Default

    Until we see the He-111 and B-25 decks I'd like to withhold judgement. I know the He-111 uses an XA deck, but don't know what that is defined as.

    Defiant - K deck.
    Last edited by Zoe Brain; 08-22-2012 at 09:11.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    Where it isn't available directly, just divide loaded weight by wing area.
    OK, a no brainer there (no pun intended). But where do you find wing area? Again, not a stat you generally find in aircraft guides and Wiki.
    Karl

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    Starting with aircraft currently available in 1/200, and not on Ares' list of forecast new releases.

    Candidates:

    Ki-27
    Buffalos of various kinds
    Ki43-I
    Fokker D.XXI
    Martin Maryland
    Martin B-10 (This one's a problem, it's just too slow....)
    Bf109F
    Blenheims I and IV
    There's probably a whole slew of them out there. FW-190A comes to mind immediately. And when the "fast" planes come out, we'll have more baselines to work from.
    Karl

  32. #32

    Default

    That may be helpful... Thanks Zoe! Hopefully someone with access to all the relative info for each aircraft will be able to make a pdf like the one for the WWI aircraft so I can start correcting all my customs in my albums.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    OK, a no brainer there (no pun intended). But where do you find wing area? Again, not a stat you generally find in aircraft guides and Wiki.
    Actually, Wiki's pretty good there. I had no need to guestimate.

    What you can do, lacking any hard data, is estimate within a few % or so. Find an aircraft with a similar wing shape, that you know wingspan and wing area for. Then multiply wing area by the ratio of the wingspans. It should give you a result within a few percent, good enough for our purposes.

    Example - Seversky P-35
    Wingspan: 36 ft 0 in (10.97 m)
    Wing area: 220 ft² (20.43 m²)

    Reggiane 2000
    Wingspan: 11.00 m (36 ft 1 in)
    Wing area: 20.40 m² (219.6 sq ft)

    Knowing one set of stats, and that the wing shapes were similar (VERY similar in this case), you can deduce one from the other.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Max Headroom View Post
    Hopefully someone with access to all the relative info for each aircraft will be able to make a pdf like the one for the WWI aircraft so I can start correcting all my customs in my albums.
    Let's get some feedback from the game designer first..... we'll also work out climb and ceiling. Actually, I wouldn't mind "operating band" rather than ceiling, with only slow manouvers permitted outside that band. But that's an optional rule, to say the least. Similarly, all "official" aircraft should have ammo 3 for cannons, between 6 and 12 for everything else, usually 8. 6 for F4F4s, 12 for Bf109Es.

  35. #35

    Default

    So lets see...

    A Fairey Fulmar Mk II would be
    Speed: 272 mph = Very Slow
    Wing loading: 28 lb/ft²

    Resul: J-Deck

    Correct?

    Considering the high wing loading i would suggest to remove the Stall-Sideslips and put a Stall icon on the Fast Sidelsip (same layout as the I-Deck but without the Dive bombing maneuvers).
    Or remove the Sideslips but keep the Fast Sidelsips cards.

    For the Baulton Paul Defiant Mk I:
    Speed: 304mph = Slow
    Wing loading: 33.27 lb/ft²

    Result: K-Deck
    Perhabs with the Stall removed from the Sideslips, or the Fast-Only Sidelslips removed and non-Steep Sidelsips cards added making it a slower E-Deck.
    Last edited by Kaiser; 08-24-2012 at 04:29.

  36. #36

    Default

    No feedback?

    Next try:

    Bloch MB.152C.1
    Speed: 316 mph = Medium
    Wing loading: 31.8 lb/sq ft

    Result: D-Deck
    Last edited by Kaiser; 08-31-2012 at 04:26.

  37. #37

    Default

    Looks good.

    I'd like to concentrate on things already available in 1/200. That means AIM, Grendal/Scotia, Air200, HBM, Geromy, Petersplanes soon, a few Shapeways... any others?

    Fokker D.XXI - K deck
    Fokker G.1 - K deck (but mind those 4C,1A guns at the front, plus rear armament too)
    Ki-30 Anne - I deck, very similar to D3A1
    LaGG 5 - F deck
    Mig 3 - E deck
    I-15bis - L deck

    Anything faster than a LaGG 5, we need to get the P51 and 190D stats for first. Anything nippier, we need Spit IX.

  38. #38

    Default

    1cm = ~30mph seems about right. So a 300mph aircraft should move 10cm. That is, 6cm for its base (giving a minimum speed of 180mph) plus 4cm for its manoeuvre card.
    300 mph means a K deck - that's 3.9cm, close enough!

    If we want to model 200mph aircraft (like the B-10) the arrows will get mighty short - 2cm for fast. It also means we can only model max speed 360mph unless we play additional cards, then we go to 540. That's not just Jet speed, but max permissible speed on some other aircraft in a dive. In general, dogfights were conducted at lower speeds even by fast aircraft.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom S View Post
    Thanks - I've been a closet Buffalo fetishist for many years; every now and then the subject pops up and I just can't help myself....
    Having a liking for the "poor" Buffalo, can you recomend any books that give history and stats for the various versions?
    Karl

  40. #40

    Dom S's Avatar
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    1,249
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    Best bet's a website actually; the couple of decent books tend to focus on a particular user (eg. Buffaloes Over Singapore, and the Lentolaivue 24 Osprey.) A good overview can be gotten rummaging through the various sections here though:

    http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    1cm = ~30mph seems about right. So a 300mph aircraft should move 10cm. That is, 6cm for its base (giving a minimum speed of 180mph) plus 4cm for its manoeuvre card.
    300 mph means a K deck - that's 3.9cm, close enough!

    If we want to model 200mph aircraft (like the B-10) the arrows will get mighty short - 2cm for fast. It also means we can only model max speed 360mph unless we play additional cards, then we go to 540. That's not just Jet speed, but max permissible speed on some other aircraft in a dive. In general, dogfights were conducted at lower speeds even by fast aircraft.
    There are definite limits to what the game engine can do; if fast is 2cm, then slow would be 1.2cm. Seems like the lower limit to me. The upper is more bothersome; it will be interesting to see how Ares handles the fast planes. One problem noted with the Fighting Wings games is when jets were introduced. There was a great tendecy (esp with jet on jet games) to run off the board, even with geomorphic boards, you have planes greater than the board length away from each other. Lower manuverability didn't help.
    Karl

  42. #42

    Default

    Now we have to find a means to calculate the damage capacity and the damage output.

    Some new one.
    The Romanian IAR 80
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAR_80

    IAR.80
    Speed: 316 mph = Medium
    Wing loading: 28.81 lb/ft²

    Result: D-Deck

    IAR.80A
    Speed: 337.5 mph = Fast
    Wing loading: 27.1 lb/ft²

    Result: B-Deck

    IAR.81C
    Speed: 347 mph = Fast
    Wing loading: 27.1 lb/ft²

    Result: B-Deck

    That's actually quite difficult as it doesn't fit established standards. Or the IAR.80A and IAR.81C have G-Deck.
    Last edited by Kaiser; 08-31-2012 at 04:42.

  43. #43

    Dom S's Avatar
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    1,249
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    To be honest real-life damage capacity was roughly proportional to unladen weight, and damage output to weight of shots fired. The USN I think did a post-war study that showed gun calibre to be surprisingly unimportant as a stand-alone factor, with, barring fluke criticals, the sheer weight of metal hitting being what took an aircraft to pieces whether it was 100 bullets, 10 shells, or 1 really heavy round.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom S View Post
    To be honest real-life damage capacity was roughly proportional to unladen weight, and damage output to weight of shots fired.
    Everything you ever wanted to know...

    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

    http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gust...n/fgun-pe.html

  45. #45

    Default

    Thank you for posting those gun article links, Zoe.

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser View Post
    Now we have to find a means to calculate the damage capacity and the damage output.
    Damage output is pretty well established by the rules (see Andrea's interview on the news & announcements sticky; question 13)
    For damage capacity, I'd probably extrapolate the hits from either M&M or, more accurately Fighting Wings. FW's system uses that meathod for determining damage capacity of planes. Somewhere I have an excell file I sent Linz with data for most of the likely WW2 planes in the FW system. I could e-mail it to whomever would like to look at it.
    Karl

  47. #47

    Default

    The only simplification that's a bit "over" is treating all rifle-calibre MGs the same.
    The USSR Rifle-calibre MG had nearly twice the rate of fire as the other nations'. It's an exception. All the rest were "pretty much" the same, 900-1200 RPM (vs 1800)

    All HMGs had ROF 700-900 RPM, and bullet weights/muzzle velocities that narrowed the difference.

    Same with 20mm - but some were at best 2/3 as good as others. The German MG-FF had average shell weight, average rate of fire, lousy velocity. The Russki ShVak fired a light shell, average velocity, but at a very high ROF. The German 15mm 151/15 was comparable, closer to a 20mm than an HMG, and the 20mm was quite average in all respects. The British Hispano had average everything. The Japanese HO-5 on the Ki-61 Hien was much like an ShVak - light shell, high ROF.

    As an optional rule - upgrade the Russki A's to B's at short range, downgrade the 109E and A6M2 C's to Bs at long range. Later models had better guns.

    The 109F with a similar armament to the Morane 520 is B/A and B.

    Those aircraft with armour should ignore pilot critical hits and explosions from A guns. Those lacking self-sealing fuel tanks should take an additional chit one step higher when fired at *. The latter will only affect a few aircraft in the game, as by 1942 both were standard (1940 in Europe). The A6M2 and Val being conspicuous exceptions. That does mean the A6M2 and Ki43-I should get a 90' turn though.

    * - when fired at by A or AA - take a B chit. When fired at by B or BB or BA - take a C chit. When fired at by C, CC, CCA, CCB etc take a D chit. From D - take another D chit too.

    Limit C and D ammo to 3 per game. That means if firing CC or C (etc), use up one ammo. Other guns have 8 (F4F4 has 6, 109E 12)
    That means a 109E has 3 C shots, 9 others.

  48. #48

    Default

    I started working on this last week (much to the detriment of other things), and I'm wondering what to use to figure the climb rate? Many entries only have 1 figure, while planes that are in the FWs games have ROCs for each altitude band, and several planes (online sources) have multiple ROCs also. How to use this to figure the single WGS value?
    Karl

  49. #49

    Default

    Compare them with existing climb rates. So you can see which altitude band was used.

  50. #50

    Default

    Onemore:
    Curtiss P-36 Hawk

    Speed: 313 mph = Medium
    Wing loading: 23.9 lb/ft²

    Result: C-Deck



Similar Missions

  1. Unofficial Plane Latest version of Unofficial stats are up!
    By Guntruck in forum Historical Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 12:48
  2. Unofficial Aircraft Stats Version 4
    By Guntruck in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 18:38
  3. Official Unofficial Stats V.3.1 Beta available
    By Zoe Brain in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-03-2012, 14:12
  4. Official Unofficial Stats V.3 Beta available
    By Zoe Brain in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-08-2012, 17:45
  5. The Unofficial Stats Committee Results
    By Linz in forum Historical Discussions
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 01-01-2012, 03:29

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •