You're comparing loiter speeds, not cruise speeds. Loiter is for maximum endurance, cruise is for maximum range. If you plot a course for the aircraft and let them accelerate to cruise speed, the ranges change quite a bit.
They change (obviously), but this is not relevant since the reduction remains the same when adding weapons:
The unloaded B-1B flies 10365 nm at 480kts, but loaded with 24 JASSMs its again reduced to 3740nm, exactly the same reduction of about 66%.
Same with the B-2 9300 vs 4000 ( 56% ) and the B-52, 10875 vs 9480 ( 13%)
I don’t have any problem with the total range when the aircrafts are unloaded.
They match with the info which is publicly available. What I don’t understand is how a 12% increase in weight can result in a 66% decrease in range in one aircraft while a 5% increase only results to 13% in another.
quote: Also true but again, besides the point. Yes, a B-52 has a greater range than a B-1B, it carries more fuel to begin with and the original B-1B design was built for speed anyway.
The reason for the relative diff between unloaded and loaded ranges for B-1/2 vs B-52 is that the cruise speed of the B-52 isn't much higher than loiter speed, but much higher for the B-1/2.
But this doesn’t explain the reduction in range when you add weapons.
No matter how efficient the B-52 might be, there is no way loading her up to the maximum possible weight will result in only a 13% decrease in range while a B-1B losses 66% of its range under the same conditions.
Also, cruising speed of the B-52s is 450kts. B-1Bs fly at 480 kts. That’s a negligible difference.
But what happens if I just increase the speed of the B-52s to 480kts? The range drops (obviously, I don’t have any problem with this), for unloaded B-52 8500nm, and the loaded one 7400nm. So that’s a range reduction of only 8% (!), even less than the reduction at their optimal cruising speed.
We can play the same game with the Lancers. At 450kts its about 10200nm for the unloaded and about 3700nm for the loaded ones. Again, no difference, the range reduction when carrying weapons is still absurdly high compared to B-52s.
- The actual strike radius is given in the loadout description in the Database Viewer. Remember that the max radius is different depending on whether the aircraft is expected to drop (or jettison) ordnance, or expected to bring it back home to base. The DB Viewer assumes the ordnace is expended at the given radius, where as the range estimate you see in the Unit Status assumes the ordnace is carried all the way.
I’m aware of this, all that I’m interested at this point is exactly like you said – how far can a fully armed B-52 / B-1B until it crashes.
Ignore the those Strike Mission estimates from the database finder for a sec, just look at the fuel status panel of the individual unit (check attachment, unit fuel.png).
The game tells me 9462nm for a loaded B-52 carrying 145.000 kg of fuel and just 3750nm for a B-1B carrying 120.000kg of fuel.
I just can fathom why. IMO there is something wrong with whatever CMANO does to come up with those ranges. The range for the B-52 looks fine, but the absurdly large range reductions of the B-1Bs and B-2s don’t seem to work at all.
We have used combat radius from public sources for these bombers. If you think the DB Viewer ranges are incorrect, feel free to link to sources with updated info.
As said, I’m not arguing about the database viewer. There has to be something wrong with your math or whatever CMANO does coming up with its numbers.
Range is just velocity x maximum flight time
maximum flight time is Fuel x LiftDragRatio / Specific Fuel Consumption x weight
We don’t know know every parameter but we know enough for me to illustrate the problem.
If you check the small and crude excel sheet I included you see that there is simply no way that a 25.000kg increase in weight will result in a range reduction of 66%.
Or to put it another way: An unloaded B-1B will make it to Bejing from Ellsworth AFB and back to CONUS with room to spare. If the same aircraft is carrying 25tons of weapons, it'll barely reach Hickam on Hawaii.
< Message edited by Nightwatch -- 8/30/2016 5:54:06 PM >