|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 19, 2018 18:11:50 GMT -6
if you have "spare" planes and aircrews, whats stopping you from using them? seems a waste to have planes and not use them Because military aircraft are usually cutting edge, technology wise, and that results in lots of preventative and operational maintenance. On average, roughly 10% to 30% of airframes are not airworthy for a variety of reasons in most squadrons in most military organizations. Thats considered normal. Aircrew tends to be more reliable, but there was usually allowances for crew loss due to sickness/injury, transfers, training and other operational duties. In most cases, naval squadrons were expected to make this up with command staff. There were very few command staff compared to plane spares. So, in the case of spare aircraft on carriers, a plane would be sent down for major repairs, and a spare would be brought up as a replacement. Engines, in particular, were a big problem for naval aviation in WW2. They were very complex, took up a lot of space, and required frequent work. As a result, planes were often down for engine repairs or overhauls, resulting in another plane not available. So, the "spares" really werent spares, they were often rotated in for operational use while other planes were down for repair or overhaul. Cannibalizing damaged airframes for spare parts was very common. Space on ships is at a premium, so it was common for badly damaged planes to be stripped and tossed over the side, while spares were brought in, when they were available. In most cases, squadrons in combat operations went through the spares quickly. Once they had degraded below acceptable levels, the carriers would rotate back to the rear for replenishment or the squadrons would be replaced with fresh ones. The US usually ran squadrons for a set number of combat tours, or combat hours, and then rotated them out. The UK did the same with the Fleet Air Arm. Japan did not, as they did not have the aircrew in most cases /history nerd hat onTotally as an aside, one of the big things for naval aviation was actually the planes engines. The complexity of engines and the short engine life of military engines was a big deal in WW2. The horsepower race in the late 1930s into the 1940s saw a huge increase in horsepower, and a huge increase in complexity with a corresponding drop in reliability. Engine life was pretty low, usually in the hundreds of hours, after that the engine had to be rebuilt or scrapped and replaced. Engine size and weight also meant that very few replacements were usually carried, and most times the aviation ship onboard would try to rebuild units where they could. Engine availability was a big issue for both sides throughout the war. In many cases, lack of the right types of engines meant the planes were grounded. A great case in point was the Japanese Ki-100. It was actually a Ki-61, but many of them had been grounded due to an engine shortage of their inline engines. There were lots of rotary engines laying around, so someone got the bright idea to bolt one to a Ki-61, and presto, the IJA got the Ki-100, which was actually a really good plane. In 1917, a Sopwith Camels rotary engine cranked out 150hp. The engine was a simple 9 cylinder rotary, and was not mechanically complex. The Camels engine was also pretty reliable, and did not require a lot of maintenance. There were inline engines in use, often with more horsepower, but their reliability was much less than rotary engines, so the fledgling naval aviation business stuck with rotary engines. But the quest for more horsepower came at craming more cylinders, multi-stage superchargers, and much higher compression to get more ponies. By 1927 most aircraft were double the Camels hp rating or more. By the 1930s, as the world situation started to go pear shaped, the horsepower race went full bore, and the result was much higher horsepower, more complexity and naval fighters going obsolete quickly. You literally had fighters that were obsolete a year after they were introduced. For example; Year US Fighter Horsepower IJN Fighter Horsepower 1918 VE7 180 1923 Boeing FF 435 1MF 224 1928 Boeing F3B 435 A1N 450 1933 Grumman FF 650 A2N 580 1935 Grumman F2F 625 A4N 730 1936 Grumman F3F 950 A5N 600 (A5N was a monowing) 1939 Brewster F2A 950 (mono) 1941 Grumman F4F 1200 A6M 1150 1943 Grumman F6F 2000 1944 A7M 2250
/history nerd hat off! One of the reasons for the Jeep carriers was to carry spare aircraft and crews for the fleet carriers. If one or two were lost, spare aircraft and crews would be flown to the fleet carrier to maintain it in combat. Another factor not presented or understood is ethyl and the octane rating of fuels. Ethyl was owned by the Ethyl corporation who owned the patent, they were owned by Standard Oil of Ohio. SOHIO sold the patent rights to ethyl to I. G. Farben of Germany for the rights to synthetic fuels. The US started the war with 100/130 octane fuel which burned cooler and gave much more power. The Japanese started the war with 87 octane but eventually developed 92 octane and used that fuel through much of the war. We eventually developed 150 octane AVGAS which made our aircraft engines much more powerful. For those of you interested, here is a link to a NASA historical piece about the evolution of modern aircraft; Quest For performance - history.nasa.gov/SP-468/contents.htm
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 19, 2018 23:05:47 GMT -6
There were lots of rotary engines laying around, so someone got the bright idea to bolt one to a Ki-61, and presto, the IJA got the Ki-100, which was actually a really good plane. The Camel had a rotary engine, but the Ki-100 did not! (Nor did any fighter of the WWII era). The Ki-100 had a plain old radial engine. The rotary was a special type of radial engine mostly used in WWI-era aircraft, in which the crankshaft was bolted to the airframe instead of rotating freely, the propeller was attached to the engine casing instead of the crankshaft, and the *whole engine* rotated around the crankshaft to drive the propeller. The term "rotary engine" has also been used to describe Wankel type designs, but the Wankel wasn't invented until the jet age, and so hasn't really been used a lot on aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Feb 22, 2018 7:18:41 GMT -6
Every entry is interesting, specially the historical ones, but I would really like to see this game released soon.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 22, 2018 10:26:52 GMT -6
We have been given a high confidence of "late this year", which is far more than we've had before, so I am allowing myself to look forward to that.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 22, 2018 10:39:35 GMT -6
I can say at this point that RTW2 will be out sometime before the end of this year
|
|
|
Post by steveh11 on Feb 23, 2018 8:53:42 GMT -6
I can say at this point that RTW2 will be out sometime before the end of this year Yay! Excellent news. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 23, 2018 16:27:21 GMT -6
I can say at this point that RTW2 will be out sometime before the end of this year Will there be a "beta test" pool, or will you be doing all of that in-house?
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Feb 23, 2018 16:30:49 GMT -6
I can say at this point that RTW2 will be out sometime before the end of this year Much excitement .
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Feb 25, 2018 7:54:25 GMT -6
I can say at this point that RTW2 will be out sometime before the end of this year Can't wait!!!
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 25, 2018 10:07:32 GMT -6
I can say at this point that RTW2 will be out sometime before the end of this year Will there be a "beta test" pool, or will you be doing all of that in-house? We do our beta-testing in house - but if we ever need more beta-testers we have a talented pool of players/members here on the forums to draw from I do believe. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by davedave on Feb 26, 2018 15:33:05 GMT -6
Fantastic news about RTW2!
I'll be counting the days...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 26, 2018 19:14:26 GMT -6
This is more of a question than a suggestion.
Will we be able to research, build and deploy stealth aircraft in RTW2?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 26, 2018 19:24:16 GMT -6
This is more of a question than a suggestion. Will we be able to research, build and deploy stealth aircraft in RTW2? Assuming you are speaking about stealthy in regards to RADAR, I doubt that "purposefully designed" stealthy aircraft frames would be a thing in RTW2 since those did not occur until the 1970s; some reduced radar cross-section aircraft existed during the <= 1950 period but they were more of a byproduct of a given design not the primary goal. In relation to this: The often-quoted stealth claims of the German Ho 229 were apparently grossly overstated according to the most recent studies and assessments, it would not qualify as a true stealth aircraft; at best it would have been a reduced-RCS frame.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 26, 2018 19:32:13 GMT -6
This is more of a question than a suggestion. Will we be able to research, build and deploy stealth aircraft in RTW2? Assuming you are speaking about stealthy in regards to RADAR, I doubt that "purposefully designed" stealthy aircraft frames would be a thing in RTW2 since those did not occur until the 1970s; some reduced radar cross-section aircraft existed during the <= 1950 period but they were more of a byproduct of a given design not the primary goal. Well, the Horton 229, whose fuselage and parts I saw at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio might change your mind. It was supposed to be covered with a charcoal covering to absorb radar waves. It's never been proven that it would not have worked, and neither has it been proven that it would have. It might be fun to explore the possibilities. The prototype which I saw had no charcoal that Horton wanted to use, so it's hard to say. But I would guess that it Radar Cross Section would be significantly reduced compared to a B-17 or B-26.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 26, 2018 19:35:08 GMT -6
Assuming you are speaking about stealthy in regards to RADAR, I doubt that "purposefully designed" stealthy aircraft frames would be a thing in RTW2 since those did not occur until the 1970s; some reduced radar cross-section aircraft existed during the <= 1950 period but they were more of a byproduct of a given design not the primary goal. Well, the Horton 229, whose fuselage and parts I saw at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio might change your mind. It was supposed to be covered with a charcoal covering to absorb radar waves. It's never been proven that it would not have worked, and neither has it been proven that it would have. It might be fun to explore the possibilities. The prototype which I saw had no charcoal that Horton wanted to use, so it's hard to say. But I would guess that it Radar Cross Section would be significantly reduced compared to a B-17 or B-26. See my edited post. Lets move on to keep this thread on topic (if you want to open another thread elsewhere to discuss the HO 229 feel free). Thanks!
|
|