DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Target for Tonight
HTML https://targetfortonight.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 16--------------------------------------------------
ON FM MODULE
DIR By: Flying Dutchman
Date: June 3, 2020, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So I'm in a fight with a NF, expert ....question coming on round
3
Round 1 was SM ....three hits delivered ...one engine feathered,
two fuel leaks, one sealed one caused the loss of 1/8th
remaining fuel.
Round 2 ....NF was spotted so the attack came from 6 low, I
allowed the evasive action this time ...shots missed all around.
Round 3 ....VC ....NF not spotted this time.
**Do I allow another SM attack?
Or treat it as a VC climb attack with forward guns.
Or drop the NF back to 6 O'clock like he was spotted and resolve
fire from the NF there.
I'm thinking about NF Ace rules here that would suggest the NF
doesn't get to re engage in round 3 with SM.
I'll wait hold up play further pending a response or a
consensus. Zone 6 going to zone 11 on 3 engines now. 16 zones to
go and 18.5 zones worth of fuel.
Glenn
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------
From: Christopher Schall <airborne@zoominternet.net>
Date: 2020-05-31 10:21 a.m. (GMT-07:00)
To: "'Harvey T.Dearden'" <htdearden@tdsl.org.uk>, 'simon haines'
<horsarider@gmail.com>
Cc: 'bob marley' <robocop01@gmx.net>, 'GLENN SAUNDERS'
<gcsaunders@shaw.ca>, 'NIGEL HODGE' <nsrj@btinternet.com>,
'Richard A Martin' <martinrick@msn.com>, 'Rob Wagner'
<ronez@freenet.de>, 'David Damrel' <david.damrel@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: ON FM MODULE
Yes I just need to be consistent so I am accurate.
Chris
From: Harvey T.Dearden [mailto:htdearden@tdsl.org.uk]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 12:10 PM
To: Christopher Schall; simon haines
Cc: bob marley; GLENN SAUNDERS; NIGEL HODGE; Richard A Martin;
Rob Wagner; David Damrel
Subject: Re: ON FM MODULE
Comes to the same thing! The calc is on the basis of the last
zone traversed.
Harvey T. Dearden
(mobile phone transmission)
From: simon haines <horsarider@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 5:06:08 PM
To: Christopher Schall <airborne@zoominternet.net>
Cc: Harvey T.Dearden <htdearden@tdsl.org.uk>; bob marley
<robocop01@gmx.net>; GLENN SAUNDERS <gcsaunders@shaw.ca>; NIGEL
HODGE <nsrj@btinternet.com>; Richard A Martin
<martinrick@msn.com>; Rob Wagner <ronez@freenet.de>; David
Damrel <david.damrel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ON FM MODULE
Some confusion on when to adjust fuel--leaving a zone or
beginning of new one? I do it when Leaving the Zone, but i
would to like to know when it should be.
Simon
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 4:50 PM Christopher Schall
<airborne@zoominternet.net> wrote:
Lancaster test mission to Argentan, France. June 44. Zone 6
using fuel rules (v6). Uneventful mission, NFs were ineffective
as was AAA.
I did encounter a NF (110 G-4) in zone 2 outbound (unusual). He
lost the bomber after one pass.
Bombed target for 14%.
Started w 16 fuel, returned w 4.7 left.
Some confusion on when to adjust fuel--leaving a zone or
beginning of new one? Gotta get into a regular pattern so as
not to get confused.
Good stuff!! I think it is ready to put out on BGG.
Chris
From: Harvey T.Dearden [mailto:htdearden@tdsl.org.uk]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 6:54 AM
To: bob marley
Cc: simon haines; GLENN SAUNDERS; Christopher Schall; NIGEL
HODGE; Richard A Martin; ronez@freenet.de; David Damrel
Subject: Re: ON FM MODULE
Have made some minor style/typo tweaks and introduced the 0.5Z
for moves to/from high altitude.
Also a final twist on fuel uncertainty- IF 'engines out' in next
zone AND next zone is Z1, THEN roll 1d6: 1-3 engines out before
landing, 4-6 after landing.
Unless there are any other final observations I'll move to
upload to the Geek.
Harvey T. Dearden
(mobile phone transmission)
From: bob marley <robocop01@gmx.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 10:43:16 AM
To: Harvey T.Dearden <htdearden@tdsl.org.uk>
Cc: simon haines <horsarider@gmail.com>; GLENN SAUNDERS
<gcsaunders@shaw.ca>; Christopher Schall
<airborne@zoominternet.net>; NIGEL HODGE <nsrj@btinternet.com>;
Richard A Martin <martinrick@msn.com>; ronez@freenet.de
<ronez@freenet.de>; David Damrel <david.damrel@gmail.com>
Subject: ON FM MODULE
FM description: "Note the consumption is that same regardless of
the number of moves per zone." (little typo...)
"More by good luck than anything else on my part I have to say."
A British gent...
But lets not be too modest and enjoy a bit... my info of W/C
Mahaddie on the average remaining fuel being 23% and you
assuming operational "friction" warranting the 30% factor and
building the model around that was sound.
And withstood all scrutiny I can think off...
Rob.
NB. Took the liberty of improving visibility of topic...
That’s a marvellous piece of research that gives extra
confidence – thank you.
As you say a remarkable match. More by good luck than anything
else on my part I have to say.
Having conceived of a fuel unit measure of ‘zones’, clearly the
figure had to be more than the number of operation zones and
having nominated a base figure of 0.1Z (being arithmetically
convenient) for most manoeuvres it was then a question of
establishing a ‘game calibration factor’ so that loss from fuel
starvation was relatively rare but fuel anxiety relatively
common. That was all the science behind the original concept!
From: bob marley <robocop01@gmx.net>
Sent: 31 May 2020 09:11
To: Harvey T.Dearden <htdearden@tdsl.org.uk>
Cc: simon haines <horsarider@gmail.com>; GLENN SAUNDERS
<gcsaunders@shaw.ca>; Christopher Schall
<airborne@zoominternet.net>; NIGEL HODGE <nsrj@btinternet.com>;
Richard A Martin <martinrick@msn.com>; ronez@freenet.de; David
Damrel <david.damrel@gmail.com>
Subject: Aw: RE: RE: FM Module Final Draft?
OK Harvey, final feedback...
I totally get what you mean, but was concerned the extra will
not be enough for shorter trips.
The blockfuel calculation as I proposed is admittedly more
complex.
Is it warrented?
So what I did was meticulously reconstruct feul usage of a
stirling bomber on a trip to Berlin (av. "long") and to Köln
("short").
I used all graphs from the Pilot and Engineer notes, regarding
galon/mile-burn to cruize ect ect. (will spare you that ;O))
Calculated "properly" the burn for climb, cruize and descent
phases, including bombs outwd.
Converted all that to zones, calculating btw that a zone is
about 60 miles (not nautical miles), assuming a somewhat
indirect routing.
You get the picture, did my homework (one I enjoyed), and the
result is remarkable:
1st Trip to (11Z)Berlin:
Blockfuel "FM" mod: 22x1.3=nett fuel available 28.6
versus...
Blockfuel "suggested": 22.7 (trip)+2.3 (10% contingency)+ 2.5
(fixed value for alternate at 80 miles plus 15 min holding)=nett
fuel available 27.5
A REMARKABLE MATCH.
Not convinced, I made a 2nd short Trip to (6Z) Cologne:
Blockfuel "FM" mod: 12x1.3=15.6
versus..
Blockfuel "suggested": 11.2 (trip)+1.1 (cont)+ 2.5 (fixed
value)=14.8
AGAIN, ON SHORTER TRIP REMARKABLE MATCH!
Conclusion:
1. The basic values/ratios of the FM mod are VERY plausible.
2. Effect on shorter trips acceptable.
3. So any complication of those rules not warrented.
Nice to know:
1. Your selection of base value "1.0" per zone (I see it as a
ratio) fits almost seamlessly with the average bomber cruize
burn of roughly
"1.0 miles per gallon."
2. Actual ratio of climb to bombing alt:
-it takes 2 zones (around 90 miles (Hal to 18.000 feet)-140
miles (Lanc to 20.000 feet) miles to reach bombing alt.
-the real life extra burn is higher than modelled: on
average: translates to +1.4 extra burn insteas of +0.5
presently.
3. The Lancaster carries the highest bombload by far, yet uses
LEAST fuel per mile and gets higher...
IF during playtesting the FM mod block fuel would be too
"lenient", an increase of climb burn (to anyting up to 2x1.4)
would be an easy and realistic fix!
"Stirling" job, Rob!
There is a trade-off here between more sophisticated
representation of fuel consumption and the fact of this being a
game. Certainly I’m keen to establish a recognition that fuel
was an operationally significant consideration but am also keen
not overcomplicate things – a judgement call. (I understand
that the simplistic representation may offend those with a
greater understanding.)
I understand the relative dominance of fuel burn with the climb
to altitude and we might make climb/descent say 0.5/-0.5 say?
(So other factors aside would use 1.5 to climb in a zone and 0.5
to descend.) Is it the case that a bomber would stay high if
they could and only come to low altitude if obliged by failures
– in which case there wouldn’t be a case for climbing to high
again?
Without descent earlier in the operation this will push things a
bit more towards fuel uncertainty.
The factor 1.3 should not be thought of as an actual ‘fuel
reserve’ calculation, but rather as a ‘game calibration factor’
to make the outcomes ‘sensible’ in terms of gameplay given the
simple model employed.
From: bob marley <robocop01@gmx.net>
Sent: 30 May 2020 19:17
To: Harvey T.Dearden <htdearden@tdsl.org.uk>
Cc: simon haines <horsarider@gmail.com>; GLENN SAUNDERS
<gcsaunders@shaw.ca>; Christopher Schall
<airborne@zoominternet.net>; NIGEL HODGE <nsrj@btinternet.com>;
Richard A Martin <martinrick@msn.com>; ronez@freenet.de; David
Damrel <david.damrel@gmail.com>
Subject: Aw: RE: FM Module Final Draft?
I have 2 remarks, about the FM model.
I hope you stay with me, because its a longer post as I try to
buid a case, but hopefully interesting...
The FIRST is the burn needed to climb to bombing alt.
Its present 0.1 does not reflect this energy cost I think, but
its arbitrary.
More important tough, is what may it cost so that it may or may
not be worth climbing back to alt? A descision...
A parabolic flight is most economic in miles/gallon.
That would mean, takeoff, climb to reach cruize alt, follwed by
an immediate idle power descent virtually ending at destination.
Suppose the extra burn for climbing to bomb alt is 0.4 extra, 1
zone after homebase.(narrows window of useful potential re-climb
later on) The burn for descending is 0.3 total, (or -0.7)
I took these figures to calculate, not claimig absoluteness.
If the climb cost 1.4 fuel. (add 0.1 for bombs, left out for
simplicity)
The descent is where we cash back on aforementioned effect: 0.3
(idle power)x1zones=0.3 fuel.
Total fuel burn: 1.8 instead of 2.00 for moving 2 zones.
All this fuel (takeoff, climb with bombs, cruize under perfect
conditions, descent and landing) should be part of the Tripfuel,
as explained below.
Another nice touch/consideration, aerodynamically sound, but
sounds contradictory:
A heavier aircraft glides further than a light one. (I will
spare you the graphs)
Then allow for a bomber with bombs inbound descending to pay 0.3
for last 3 zones (instead 2) if flying high, and also bestow the
2 zones 0.3 if flying at 10.000 feet.
The SECOND is in an older post, which I paste under these
sentences.
It is about the formula of calculating the feul load.
I based it on my experience with making dead-reconing navplans
(before GPS, basically what WW2 nav was before GEE, OBOE ect.
came in) and the resulting required fuel. I dont think those
basics changed much.
This would elimiate the problem of too little reserve fuel on
short missions, and provide a viable basis of the constitution
of the fuel load.
On many occasions returning bombers were told to divert because
of socked in homebase.
Q. Increase reserve on short operations?
Yes. I think I know why.
A navplan would be made based on predicted winds (prevailing
wind direction over the continent: 80% FROM somewhere west),
temperature, pressure ect.
This would give the estimated groundspeed (=true airspeed
+tailwind OR -headwind) and hence flying time to target and
back, with associated fuel needed. (based on fuel burn all
engines per hour and standard climb to bomb alt burnoff)
Packed on top was an amount of reserve fuel, on average maybe
25%. However, this would most likely be defined in time to
loiter and distance to alternate, not as percentage of fuel
carried. Therefore, the 23% merely gives a direction of measure.
Most probably, it would be the total fuel needed for the round
trip, maybe 3-10% contingency fuel and then fuel to divert to
alternate base and hold for 15+ minutes. (in case homebase
socked in, there must be a plan B)
This is pure speculation (based on actual dead reckoning
planning basics I learned before GPS and digital computers) on
my side, but the point is:
The amount of extra fuel packed, is independant on distance to
target, save 3% (modern day value) to maybe 10% (dunno what BoCo
used, but suspect more than 3%) contingency fuel.
So if you want the full fuel monty, you may need to adapt the
fuel formula a bit:
1. Tripfuel: base-climb-cruize-target-cruize-decent-base with
estimated wind component and weight/burn with bombs outbound leg
only included.
(here comes your wind modifier, and if bombs are inadvertendly
on board on inbound leg that penalty)
+
2. A contingency % on top, at least 3% (subject further
research?) probably round 10%?
(an attempt to cover for nav inaccuracy, evasion, winds ect)
+
3. Flight to Alternate fuel and 4. Holding fuel
ca.15min.-----for simplicity, suggest to add them to a
(standard) value.
(thereby solving the problem of fuel reserves on short missions)
Blockfuel for the mission= Tripfuel+Contingency fuel
10%(?)+Alternate fuel+Holding fuel
(Any situation leading to landing with less than holding fuel
(="final reserve fuel")is critical nowadays...Ryanair incident)
Rob.
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Mai 2020 um 10:45 Uhr
Von: "Harvey T.Dearden" <htdearden@tdsl.org.uk>
An: "bob marley" <robocop01@gmx.net>
Cc: "simon haines" <horsarider@gmail.com>, "GLENN SAUNDERS"
<gcsaunders@shaw.ca>, "Christopher Schall"
<airborne@zoominternet.net>, "NIGEL HODGE"
<nsrj@btinternet.com>, "Richard A Martin" <martinrick@msn.com>,
"ronez@freenet.de" <ronez@freenet.de>, "David Damrel"
<david.damrel@gmail.com>
Betreff: RE: FM Module Final Draft?
Rob,
If I’ve missed something I apologise, but it would be
inadvertent, the email chain is so chaotic, or possibly I didn’t
recognise you were writing of FM mods.
Please advise – how better?
H.
From: bob marley <robocop01@gmx.net>
Sent: 30 May 2020 10:33
To: Harvey T.Dearden <htdearden@tdsl.org.uk>
Cc: simon haines <horsarider@gmail.com>; GLENN SAUNDERS
<gcsaunders@shaw.ca>; Christopher Schall
<airborne@zoominternet.net>; NIGEL HODGE <nsrj@btinternet.com>;
Richard A Martin <martinrick@msn.com>; ronez@freenet.de; David
Damrel <david.damrel@gmail.com>
Subject: Aw: FM Module Final Draft?
"any more thoughts?"
Yes.
Previously given, unfortunately unworthy of commend it seemed.
Whats different now?
Another one about using the uneventful flights to facilitate the
squadron game was a commend of mine too.
But you may have inadvertently missed that one, as you fell out
of the adress line of the group, and I got you back on that one.
A good list, but could have been better.
Rob.
I’m thinking we have taken this as far as we need for
publication – diminishing returns etc. – any more thoughts? Any
thoughts on the uncertainty/anxiety bit?
I’m a little worried that possibly the initial range may be a
bit light – possibly will give too many low fuel losses? Will
wait for a bit more trial run feedback, but we’re pretty much
there I believe?
Yours sincerely,
Harvey T. Dearden CEng
11 Vincent Avenue
Llandudno
LL30 1NZ
Tel : 01492 876261
Mobile : 0783 454 1940
#Post#: 108--------------------------------------------------
Re: ON FM MODULE
DIR By: Flying Dutchman
Date: June 6, 2020, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ORS facts, investigation on optimising fuel-bomb load.
Extra fuel carried by BoCo regulations: 100 Gallons.
Extra fuel ACTUALLY carried by all groups: 200 Gallons.
(Exeption: Stirling units: 300 Gallon due higher consumption,
but for simplicity that can be ignored.)
200 Gal.=200 miles=4 Zones=4.0 extra on tripfuel. 4.5 if climb
has to be paid for.
Will try that and see how it works...
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1