SteveMartin wrote:
Regarding your first point. I don't have time to do any detailed research on the causes of death of World War One flyers, but a VERY cursory examination of ONE source
<snippety>
How many of ALL casualties were cause by such occurences is probably impossible to know, but given the flimsy and open nature of these aircraft I think we can assume that the odds are well reflected by the counter mix.
Well, it is anecdotal, but I fear you might be correct, as there are few things that can stop bullets in an a/c made of wood and fabric. Some people asked to have an option to remove those chits. Their polite request was met. It is only an option and nobody forces you to use it.
Point 3. Godwin's Law. Bah. History may often be rewritten, but it can never be altered. To be critical of one side or another is to be expected.
I wrote you were skimming good ole' reductio ad hitlerem  , not that you fell into it.
I completely agree with your statement and with the remarks by headmmoid: endurance is an operational issue. That is, it affects the mission. What I say is that, on the whole, it does not affect a single combat, as endurance is an order of magnitude greater than average (anecdotal) combat duration. I am not saying that it never happened, but that it was not really relevant.
Point 5. A full load of ordinance hanging from your wings certainly makes a big difference to your performance. A "CLEAN" configuration is the optimum for air to air combat. If you are as informed about flight mechanics as you say you are, then you should know that CLEAN configuration means full INTERNAL fuel.
Easy there, I know the difference between a clean and a loaded plane. And I know that the main issue is drag, not weight. I don't deny it, but it is irrelevant for our discussion. AFAIK, in WWI fighter planes had no external ordnance.
Our little planes here do not carry the thousands of pounds of fuel and or weapons that modern aircraft carry, <SNIP> An Albatross weighing in at just over 1000kg is simply not going to gain the same amount of energy as an F18 weighing 16600kg, when it dives.
The effects are the same. The reason is simple. Energy loss due to aerodynamic drag is proportional to the weight of the aircraft, as drag (or, at least, much of it) is due to lift, which is proportional to aircraft weight. The energy an a/c gains (loses) for a dive (climb) is proportional to its weight (dU = mg dh) with mg equal to the weight. Therefore, the weight component basically cancels out. It is true that, given today's power and thrust/weight ratios, a/cs gain much more power from their engines. But this strengthens my point, as it shows that WWI a/cs had to loose altitude to maintain airspeed.
Point 6. I assume you must come from Missouri.
Nope, I'm eye-talian, a spaghetti, un rital  .
Are you seriously trying to suggest that German aircraft had adequate endurance to allow them to hang in there with the Allied aircraft, unless the battle was over their own airfield ???
All I am saying is: I agree that fuel is an operational (i.e. mission critical) issue. But really, a/cs are already designed so that their endurance copes with air combat. It is not tactical. Finding yourself 500ft below an enemy unit was much worse than running low on fuel. Which is not true nor today nor in WWII, when fuel was a tactical, as well as operational, issue.
Perhaps the ME 109s had the same endurance over London than the defending Spitfires. Maybe the P47s could fly all the way to Berlin and fight for half an hour and still be able to make it back to base. There is MORE than enough technical information available to be able to see the obvious facts unless you just don't want to believe them.
That is because you are assuming that a/cs fight at the edge of their operational range. If that happens, you are correct. If that does not happen, or happens rarely the point is moot.
Besides, all we want is an option that allows to state a fuel load for both sides: default, 50 - 50, 30-50, 50-30. For you it would mean: one side is low on fuel and must disengage soon. For me it would mean: one side was jumped by the other and has not much altitude to manoeuvre. Nobody is forcing anyone to use it, but it would allow more flexibility to a game who evolved so much in the meantime.
--
Calsir |
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
