Lancaster and steep turns?
Whilst testing for my Dambusters I am encountering a HUGE turn radius! It will require several steep turns in a row to stay on a useable size mat, and the rules do not allow for that! What's a pilot to do? I understand the airframe stress, but is the generic turn radius realistic? Do I need to work up "Dam House Rules?"
When I received my first Avro Lancaster B Mk III I spent around two hours test-flying it in a 120cm x 120cm gaming environment. All I can suggest is practice and familiarisation with what the Lancaster is able to do manoeuvers-wise. In context with the game the Lancaster's performance IMHO is authentic although I am aware of how in real life the Lancaster was capable of more particularly when pushed to it's limits. Like Corkscrew manoeuvers if required to lose height suddenly or exit a searchlight beam but corkscrews are not in the rules. Neither are turns with heavy bomber aircraft types which exceed 30 degrees - 45 degrees bank angle.
You may remember a previous discussion on here which featured Chandelles. My point relating to WGS was that firstly a Junkers Ju-87 Stuka could not perform an Immelmann Manoeuver in real life with a full load of bombs. Also twin engine aircraft with crew on board not just the pilot were not advised to in real life: Both of these would have more than likely performed a Chandelle instead of an Immelmann to achieve the same result. Well ... As I stood corrected that may be in real life context. But in WGS context all of these aircraft are considered as able to perform an Immelmann - Chandelles are not in the game rules.
House-rule suggestion: I would continue to practice and familiarise yourself with the Lancaster in normal WGS context though I can see a strong enough point for allowing steep or short manoeuvers in succession in these uniquely pressing circumstances ... Just IMHO but with me bearing in mind that Chandelles confusion and what I learned from it as a fairly new player at the time.
Hi Barney
I am now going to display my appalling ignorance! Just what is a Chandelle. Up to this moment I had always thought it was an all girl American singing Group.
Hi Reg, hope you are well today.
Twin engine aircraft Chandelle manoeuver. The aim is to achieve a 180 degree about-turn incorporating a gain of altitude in the process. Named after WW1 Air Ace who used this manoeuver defensively.
Start: Straight and level flight. Begin by advancing throttle to full and rapidly adjust flight to straight but turning with 30 degree bank angle - turn to left or right but best to practice both.
Next: Aircraft must enter a turning climb. Around 30 degrees up-angle is recommended to match bank angle. Airspeed bleeds off - aim is to turn as far through 180 degrees as possible.
Next: As the aircraft enters imminent stall knock the manoeuver off by pushing control column forward. Aircraft remains above MCA - Minimum Controllable Airspeed.
Finish: Roll wings level as soon as heading indicator shows 180 degree turn has been accomplished OR roll wings level as aircraft exits climb. This is at the pilot's discretion: Return to straight and level flight.
A chandelle is pretty much what a WW1 "Immelmann" is, the current day "Immelmann" is a rather different manoeuvre to the original involving a vertical climb and a roll (although it can be used to give broadly similar results)
vs.
Chandelle is French for candle - the manoeuvre is named so because it spiralled up (and ended in flame ?!) - No, not really, it's because French aviators during World War I described it as 'monter en chandelle', or "to climb vertically". In aerial combat the chandelle was used both aggressively to position the aircraft for attack, and defensively to evade an enemy.Originally Posted by Tonx
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
The Flight Instructor who took me through my Commercial Pilot's Licence training (where this was performed as a proficiency manoeuver) just left my Xmas card list for that one ...
Hi David, your first image may not be displaying correctly as I can't see anything. Just checking it's not me and a problem with my browser.A chandelle is pretty much what a WW1 "Immelmann" is, the current day "Immelmann" is a rather different manoeuvre to the original involving a vertical climb and a roll (although it can be used to give broadly similar results)
vs.
There is also this version of the Immelmann manoeuver which is flown with gravity-feed engines in mind. Many single engine light aircraft have gravity-feed engines which if inverted will cut out as fuel is no longer able to reach them. However I have never known of an Immelmann being flown in such an aircraft - just Chandelles as a proficiency manoeuver (or a spin if a Chandelle ever gets misjudged - witnessed once. Remind me not to follow suit at any time as it looked AWFUL!)
David, terribly sorry but that image is still not showing - and I am intrigued to see what is on it
This diagram shows what a WW1 Immelmann turn was like.
My favourite diagram of a WW1 Immel:
This is a good diagram of a Chandelle as described by Tonx:
They are quite different. An Immel is more like half a Lazy Eight - so a Lazy Four perhaps ?!
A Chandelle is what is needed by David but that will require house rules that allow him to gain and lose altitude on any manoeuvre to play but for such a game that is well worth adopting.
Last edited by flash; 12-06-2015 at 02:23.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Nice piccies Dave and a great explanation
Never Knowingly Undergunned !!
Now this is exactly what I thought an Immelman turn was - wrong again apparently. No matter how old I get, and that's considerable these days, I still continue to learn new things. Remembering them however is a whole different matter.Hi David, your first image may not be displaying correctly as I can't see anything. Just checking it's not me and a problem with my browser.
There is also this version of the Immelmann manoeuver which is flown with gravity-feed engines in mind. Many single engine light aircraft have gravity-feed engines which if inverted will cut out as fuel is no longer able to reach them. However I have never known of an Immelmann being flown in such an aircraft - just Chandelles as a proficiency manoeuver (or a spin if a Chandelle ever gets misjudged - witnessed once. Remind me not to follow suit at any time as it looked AWFUL!)
A Lancaster was quite maneuverable for a heavy bomber as this webpage reveals https://masterbombercraig.wordpress....screw-port-go/
The absence of a 'shallow dive' from the rules makes a corkscrew difficult to simulate properly although the Oberst's new counters allowing climbing and diving turns would help.
Very fun site! And so interesting - love the corkscrew maneuver description, would make a neat set of cards, especially with all the new night fighters coming on.
Last edited by clipper1801; 12-06-2015 at 22:39.
house rules that allow you gain and lose altitude on any manoeuvre would work for that - it would enhance the game no end.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
You can do that if you use the Oberst's new counters. See http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...inis-restocked
Shall I express more negative opinions of mine about the waste of resources to produce the Lanc mini for the Game? Well definitely I shall not. I shall stay silent. Angry. Dreaming of other 2 engine minis neglected... Mossies, Dorniers, Betties, Lillies, Petlyakovs, Sparvieros, Henschels.
Still happy with the Lancs? Arghhhhhh...
"We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."
Andy. Several of those suggestions may perhaps fall into the Medium Bombers category rather than being Heavy Bombers like the Avro Lancaster. Understand frustration though but IMHO the only way to increase the availability of these is for Ares Games to expand on the Medium Bombers range. Same applies to the Vickers Wellington which I would like to see as afor the game ...
PS: Also sharing your enthusiasm about the DH98 Mosquito although this aircraft could fit into a few categories instead of just being a bomber. I reckon it is definitely time for Ares to be looking at the introduction of Mosquito
I have been looking at various bombers from AIM, but I prefer official ones if possible due to maneuver decks, etc. At the rate of releases, however, ....
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
I do like the Lancs - got 4 nowShall I express more negative opinions of mine about the waste of resources to produce the Lanc mini for the Game? Well definitely I shall not. I shall stay silent. Angry. Dreaming of other 2 engine minis neglected... Mossies, Dorniers, Betties, Lillies, Petlyakovs, Sparvieros, Henschels.
Still happy with the Lancs? Arghhhhhh...
I've been doing that in solo WW1 games for the last couple of years David; I use the Altitude counters to show upward or downward movement, if the boss made something specific for WW1 I'd pick some up.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Same here.I do like the Lancs - got 4 nowLancasters are nice.
So no solution for David's request of steep turns?
I would suggest to let them leave the gaming area and setup them again at the beginning of the gaming area for a second run.
Voilà le soleil d'Austerlitz!
I recently read a book on the Dam Busters. The pilots reported that it was very difficult to turn the Lanc when the Upkeep bomb was on board and the Vickers Jassey motor was started to get the bomb rotating to develop the back spin required. The torque produced by getting the massive bomb rotating at 500 rpm made the type 464 Lancs much less maneuverable than their conventional counterparts. Also, since they were flying at such low level, the corkscrew maneuvre wasn't really possible.
If you want to explore the Dam Busters raid some more, there's a great solo game from GMT Games called Enemy Coast Ahead. It's a lot of fun. We ran a forum-based game of it at Grogheads.com a while back. Here's the thread.
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=12940.0
Got my second (the Dambuster variant) Lanc yesterday and tried to bomb some dams today -- what a desaster! Can't get my head around the little Upkeep guy, he is so unpredictable. After 7 attempts I finally hit the dam, but the bands didn't align, so it was a miss. Anyways, it was funny all the way to my last nearly-hit and I'm looking foward to get a Dambusting Multiplayer Scenario up and running next week.
One question regarding the Bouncing Bomb procedure: You 1. aim and decide to drop the bomb, in which case 2. in the next round the actual bomb drops. After that 3. the bomb begins to bounce it's way to it's target in the following three consecutive rounds. Is that correct?
Other than that I would say that the Lanc is pretty fast and quite maneuverable. Love it.
Dennis. Don't be hard on yourself ... This is far from easy!
Well done for at least attempting this nerve-rackingly frustrating task: Now you must not give up although I have a suggestion for you. Do what I did practicing the Dam Attack mission and ... Try it in the B-25 Mitchell first.
If you read through Circuits and Bumps I (WW2) you will see how this came about as the only Vickers Wellingtons I have are 1/144 Scale! So a Mitchell was borrowed and this proved to be extremely effective. I used all of the dam-busting equipment ... But flew the mission using the twin-engine B-25 which has a payload that would accommodate an Upkeep (bouncing bomb) ...
There is not much distortion due to the bigger turning circle which you noticed and speed - the Mitchell after all is a Medium Bomber. Try it and see if you have better luck - and well done again. Nice work.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
.jpg?c=a1)
Bookmarks