Combat Flight Simulator 3 Powerhouse

By Andrew Herd (1 November 2002)

f there was one lesson the Second World War taught with brutal effectiveness, it was that the bomber didn't always get through. It seems hard to comprehend now, but there was a period during the thirties when such thinking was seriously questioned, chiefly because the light bomber designs of the day very frequently outpaced opposing fighters. The doctrine was progressively reinforced as a generation of aerodynamically clean monoplane bombers emerged which left the highly manoeuverable, but draggy, biplane fighters for dead, and it accounts for why the RAF sent no-hopers such as the Fairey Battle and the Bristol Blenheim into combat. It was all very well pitting retro designs against Hawker Nimrods and the Mark 1 eyeball, but it was less funny when crews met Me 109s guided to them by a sophisticated air defence system. Just about the only bomber to confirm the prejudices of the armchair strategists was the de Havilland Mosquito, and as we have already learned, the British war cabinet couldn't see any use for it until it had proved itself despite them.

But war is nothing if not a great teacher, and by the time the US air forces had implemented their carefully rehearsed policy of precision bombing in daylight, the theoretical apple cart had been well and truly overturned. The RAF had already learned its lesson and had resorted to area bombing by night, but for tactical and operational reasons, US airmen had little choice but to fly by day, whether they wanted to or not.

I have never been able to make up my mind which is worse - flying alone at night (RAF bombers rarely saw other aircraft) or by day. The first many RAF crews knew of an attack was when cannon shells started ripping into the fuselage, but their American counterparts were forced to watch their friends being carved up in the clear skies as waves of Luftwaffe fighters slalomed head-on through their formations. The point is well made in David Puttnam's film, Memphis Belle.

Early low and medium level daylight raids took a tremendous toll in lives, so high altitudes became the norm - at least there were no aircraft losses due to flak. The problem was that escorting Spitfires had limited range and as the Luftwaffe refined its tactics, losses mounted towards an unsustainable 9%. Fortunately, in early '43, the P-47 came into service, an aircraft which has been described as the biggest and heaviest single piston engined fighter ever built.

The P-47 came from the drawing board of Alexander Kartveli, chief engineer for Republic and the designer of the P-35 and P-43. Kartveli took one look at the Air Corps specification and realised that none of the projects he was working on could be adapted to meet it, so he literally threw everything away and began from scratch. His engine choice was easy - the only powerplant capable of delivering the horsepower necessary was the P&W 18 cylinder twin-row radial, which pumped out 2000 horsepower. The problem was that it had a comparatively big frontal area and needed an efficient cooling system. After scratching his head awhile, Kartveli threw the normal principles of aircraft development in the same garbage can as his abandoned projects and designed the engine installation, cooling system and supercharger ducting before encasing them with an airframe. The result was the highly distinctive Thunderbolt, or the "Jug" as it was known to its crews.

Even as a prototype, the P-47 weighed nearly double what its contempories did and physically it was even more imposing than most aircraft, with its bulbous fuselage and the waste gate for the aft mounted supercharger stuck out there on the belly. It was fitted with 8 x .50 calibre machine guns which packed enormous punch and its sheer mass meant that there was no Allied or Axis fighter that it couldn't outdive; but it wasn't fast in the turn and even though it carried over 300 gallons of fuel internally, those 18 cylinders burned it as fast as you please. The result was that the P-47 could go farther than existing fighters, but not far enough. As combat experience was gained, it became clear that many losses could be attributed to the razorback on the early model fuselages and so a canopy borrowed from a Hawker Typhoon was fitted to a modified P-47D. This was highly successful, and coupled with the Jug's resistance to combat damage (you could shoot as many holes as you liked through the ducting in the fuselage and the plane would still keep on flying) and generous armor plating around the pilot, combat losses amounted to less than 1%. In line with the careful selection of planes that is apparent in CFS3, Microsoft have included both razorbacked and bubble-canopied versions of the P-47D.

Three former Eagle Squadrons converted to P-47s, but even with belly drop tanks these could only provide effective escort to the western German border. After that, the bombers were on their own and in a raid on Kiel in June of that year, 22 out of 60 B-17s were lost.

The solution was to deploy another fighter, the P-38. Though it had many teething problems during its operational development, this plane changed the course of the air war, because it was the first fighter with the range to fly to Berlin and back. In fact, fitted with drop tanks, a P-38 could be flown across the Atlantic and that is how many arrived in Britain. A flight of six has recently been discovered snowed over where they ran out of fuel in Greenland and at least one is being restored. Any history teachers reading this might like to follow the link, because it is to a highly readable lesson plan.

The problem with the P-38 was that it lacked performance at altitudes below 15000 feet, though it had tremendous fire power and a sensational rate of climb due to its vast reserves of power. The first long range bomber escorts began in early 1944, with P-38s providing cover as far as the Romanian oil fields at Ploesti. If they didn't employ "zoom and boom" tactics, early model P-38s were outclassed by German fighters, but later models were fitted with manoeuvering flaps and were able to outturn their opponents at medium and high altitudes. The biggest weakness of the P-38 was that its Allison engines had cooling systems which turned out to be unsuitable for use in the European theatre and every plane ended up having its powerplants changed at least once. When you understand that at operational altitude, the temperature was at least 40 below, the scale of this problem becomes apparent, and it was only solved with the debut of the P-38J.

The P-38 was dogged by another problem, which was the risk that in a high speed dive, transonic shock waves could cause control lock and make recovery very difficult - if the pilot didn't do something quick, the speed simply increased until the wings ripped off. This defect made P-38 pilots cautions about following Luftwaffe opponents in a dive, with the result that many used this tactic to escape. I can imagine the shock when the Luftwaffe encountered the P-38J-25-LO, which had compressibility flaps under the wing for the purpose of preserving elevator control at speed. Thankfully, the designers were persistent, because the P-38 went on to become one of the outstanding fighters of the war, but it took time and many European P-38 squadrons were converted to the P-51. Microsoft have simulated the compressibility effect quite well in the P-38 and also the way the P-47 "tucks" its nose down under similar circumstances.

This will begin another huge argument, but the P-51 is remembered as the outstanding US fighter of the Second World War. Few people realise that it was designed at Britain's request, as the NA-73, which became known in the RAF as the Mustang. The Army Air Force purchased Allison-powered Mustangs from 1941 onward, but poor high altitude performance limited these to photo-reconnaissance and ground support use. In 1942, someone had the brainwave of fitting a Rolls Royce "Merlin" engine, which boosted not only speed but also service ceiling; Merlin-powered P-51As first flying in Europe in December 1943. Successive variants improved this already great airplane, including the classic P-51D, which had a top speed of 437 mph in level flight, a range of 1000 miles and a service ceiling of 41,900 feet. P-51s destroyed nearly 5000 enemy aircraft in the air, making it the top scoring AAF fighter. CFS3 provides two variants, a B and a D.

Enough of history - but I have included the above to make a point, which is that the US fighters included in CFS3 were all designed for the best possible high altitude performance. One of the ironies of flying the planes in the sim is that you would never imagine that this was true. To a certain extent, you can excuse the Spitfire, because Microsoft have designated both the planes they have included as "L.F." versions, but even these aircraft could (and did) reach 30,000 feet - even Microsoft give their service ceiling as 42,000.

Just to give you an idea, in 1942, Flying Officer G.W.H. Reynolds flew a specially lightened Mark Vc to 50,000 feet above Aboukir. At that colossal altitude, the temperature in the cockpit was 67 degrees below zero, and he could see the land masses of three continents stretching away. Partially paralysed by the cold and hypoxia, he nevertheless shot down a Ju 86 reconnaissance aircraft and prevented further surveillance of the Allied military build up. Reynolds was 38 by the way, so according to the Campaign selection box, he was too old to fly CFS3 (-:

Now if a Spitfire could get that high, what should the performance of a P-38, or even a P-47 be like? The best I can say is, try it yourself. All the default planes struggle at the normal altitudes at which missions were flown, even if you enable the autothrottle option, which should, at least theoretically, give you perfect engine management - but I found the performance unpredictible in practice.

The trouble is that because the cockpit is "black boxed" there is no way of playing around with the engine controls to find out what is wrong, however I suspect that the implementation of the boost systems used on these supercharged planes isn't quite right. At 26,000 feet, a Spitfire Mark IX should have been able to climb at 140 kias and even allowing for the fact that Microsoft have simulated the L.F. versions, the CFS3 planes have very variable climb rates and unrealistically mushy handling at altitude. This affects them all, even the P-38.

The clue to why this should be lies in the choice of bombers and missions - the whole thrust of CFS3 is medium and low level tactical bombing. As far as I can see, the developers have concentrated on simulating combat in the lower reaches of the atmosphere, which means that if you are hoping, as I was, of a "Mighty Eighth" add-on for CFS3, you may need to dream on. With luck the problem lies in the air files, rather than the atmospheric model, but it does mean that anyone planning a realistic strategic bombing add-on for CFS3 - and such a package would be hugely popular - is going to have to remodel the default fighters to allow them keep up with their charges. It also means that a whole slew of historical tactics are out, unless you have the patience to struggle up to thirty thousand and camp for hours before a dive and kill opportunity comes your way.

Which takes me on to multiplayer. I have now had some time to play around with this and it has confirmed a few things. First, I am no better at multiplayer than I used to be and the average ten year old sends me spiralling to earth on the second pass; second, multiplayer is as much fun as you can have without risking catching social diseases; and third, the module isn't entirely bug free.

Apart from the usual lost connections, I have had a couple of crashes to the desktop, including one where I was flying one minute and staring at the background the next. I have never seen a game vanish with such consummate ease. Looking on the bright side, logging on is a no-brainer and the built-in module even remembers your callsign (I am the Fishburn Flyer by the way) and password. When you opt for MP, CFS3 brings up a dialog that ranks on-line sessions just about every way you would care to imagine, so that all you have to do is select one and join in. There is a wide range of options available for hosting sessions; in my opinion the most fun are ones with the hard flight model and aircraft IDs turned off, though I am sure you will have your own ideas. Just don't turn off the tactical display option, because otherwise you will never find anyone else to shoot down. I joined one session like that and spent ten minutes wandering a lonely path around the clouds before I caught a glimpse of a Ju 88 flashing past. That was it. Realistic in the extreme and about as exciting as watching your great-aunt knit.

Visually, MP blows CFS2 away and to some extent, IL2 besides. The perennial problem with it is that the combat is unreal because it lacks focus - few WWII combats were flown with aircraft weaving between the trees in some colossal free-for-all where if you saw a plane, you could shoot it down. Even in June 1940, the opposing sides were so high they left contrails and the whole MP thing would be vastly improved if there was an option for one side to defend a flight of AI bombers. Sure, you could defend a flight of real bombers, but flying in formation while someone else has all the fun isn't ever going to be a majority sport. However, I am sure that this will have little impact on MP fans' enjoyment.

While I found MP was smooth over a 64K connection and it must run like silk on broadband, I did spot the occasional funny, such as planes doing tight turns with the nose pointing outwards, rather than inwards, and I have yet to see any of the parachutes that brighten up IL2 sessions so much. As you can tell from the top two shots, the explosions and battle damage are something else and as long as you can keep people off using the P-55A, then all of the aircraft are in with a chance. Even the P-55 has its disadvantages.

There are a couple of US bomber designs: the B-25 and the B-26. The B-25 is in RAF colors, but the B-26 is available in the polished aluminum finish that Gmax shows off so well. Both these planes have gun turrets, which means opens up an ocean of new possibilities, because if you hop into a gun position, the AI copilot flies the plane and you can get some retaliation in. The snag is that the view from the turrets is limited, the AI pilots know no fear and the fighters almost always attack from below; your plane tends to fly in a straight line, with a big sign hung out saying "shoot at me" and they do.

If you are quick, and you have a good joystick, you may get a shot at the odd incoming 109 as he turns in the overshoot, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it and I have yet to shoot a fighter down, though it all adds to the experience. There is some clever stuff surrounding manning the gun positions, because the aircraft carry on and bomb their targets and if you swap out to spot view you can admire the way the guns elevate and depress and the turrets revolve. But it doesn't get any flying done.

In CFS3 the B-25 is represented in the C,H and J versions. I can imagine that someone, somewhere is going to have to produce one of the modified "B" versions that Doolittle used to bomb Tokyo, not to mention a carrier to launch them off. Soon after that raid the B-25 was named the "Mitchell" by North American Aviation executives, in honor of Brigadier General William Mitchell, a great supporter of air power in the US during the 1920s. The RAF flew the B-25C as the Mitchell II, but otherwise it was virtually identical to its counterparts in US service, right down to the greenhouse nose. The B-25H was a real event, a cannon-equipped medium bomber with an armored nose, that carried no less than 15 guns; while the J reverted back to a standard bomber nose, at the expense of two guns. Ike used a J as his personal transport for a while.

The B-26 gained an evil reputation in its early years, following a great many accidents, some of which were fatal. In March 1942, the fate of the plane which had become known as the "widow-maker" hung in the balance as a full investigation was mounted, but it was discovered that many of the problems lay in the plane's weight and balance and continued production was eventually sanctioned. Shortly afterwards there was another spate of accidents, caused by the Curtiss Electric props shifting to feather during takeoff, which turned out to be due to a combination of poor electrical design and faulty maintenance. But the over-riding virtue of the B-26 was that it could outgun and even outpace the Japanese Zero and that was enough to save it - that and a redesign of the wing, which increased the area over that of the lethal A series. CFS3 has a C and a G series. There wasn't a great deal to choose between the different variants, but you will be pleased to hear that both have the bigger wing - which raises the opportunity for some enterprising developer to bring us a real Widow Maker.

The B-26 was a superb plane and would make a great add-on for FS2002, let alone CFS3. By some quirk of fate, there are at least two teams working on B-25 projects, but this is the first really good B-26 I have seen for either sim. Once again, it is a real shame that the cockpit controls are unusable, because even a quick read of the POH tells me that these were interesting birds to fly, way beyond my experience, anyway. One of the first statements in the documentation for the real plane is that spins and loops were prohibited and this is one occasion when I am completely sure that everyone obeyed the instruction. The CFS plane has a flight model that seems extremely appropriate and everybody should try getting one off the ground fully loaded at least once.

And that, beyond the Curtiss experimental and the P-80, is that, as far as the US planes go; from the Jug to the Shooting Star in three skips and a jump. I just decline to discuss the P-55, you can find out about it yourself (-:

After the Luftwaffe/snags piece I had many articles asking if I had gone off CFS3. No, I haven't; but I have grown to like it for what it is. It isn't perfect, there is a good deal about it that I would change, but there is so much by way of compensation that I just went out and bought a Force Feedback II purely so I can pull G without hearing the springs on my CH Pro yoke creaking. With a bit of juggling around with the settings I have found that the FF2 and my CH pedals work well together, the pedals giving that extra bit of control necessary for sawing the nose so I can hose those 88s with cannon fire.

When you bear in mind that I am a stranger to CFS2, you can draw your own conclusions, but if there is one thing, one single thing that could be added to this game, apart from working cockpits and winds it is... is... an instant replay. CFS3 is so darned good that I have lost count of the times I have reached for that menu item and found it missing. You fly some impossible pull out, or make an inspired kill and discover the chance for watching it has been lost forever - frustrating, or what? C'mon, guys, give us a break - you produce visuals this good and then you only get to see them once?

Yes, the chiaroscuro skies are cheesy (but don't they look great? Caneletto had a definite point), yes the ground units aren't exactly photorealistic, but when it comes down to it, what are we expecting here? Reality? Pain when the bullets hit? In the final analysis, CFS3 has made great strides over its predecessor and if it doesn't please everyone, it certainly pleases me. Sure, if you don't have a fast machine, it doesn't look as beautiful as it might and I am aware that many users will end up running it with the sliders at one or two, but there is a price for all this sophistication and you pay for it in processor cycles.

Someone asked me if the gunners are as effective in CFS3 as they were in the previous version and in IL2. The answer is that it pays to stay away from them and if you fly in a straight line and match the enemy's speed, they will get you every time, but the crews are nothing like the hot shots that man the back seats of IL2 Stukas, who seem to pack quad 30mm cannon and never miss. It is true that WW2 gunners didn't shoot many aircraft down and CFS3 simulates the difficulties they faced reasonably well - just try manning a waist position in one of the planes and see how well you do - but fighter pilots still had a healthy respect for them. Even one bullet in the wrong place when you are 500 miles from home is a hole too many. Just think of the guys in back, who had to crawl down a long tunnel in order to sit freezing in their seat, scanning the skies for hours on end. Many of them never even saw the enemy, some spotted their nemesis too late, the rest finished their war and went on to do perfectly ordinary things, pumping gas, certifying accounts and delivering news.

Take a look at those guys, they are all around you; it may be your last chance. Their generation is getting old now and what is a game for you and I was life and death to them. Respect.

PS: That really is it! You will just have to buy it if you want to know any more. Assuming you can find a copy, that is (-: