Author Topic: The reason to Fix the diving heavies (Read 1299 times)

bozon · « **Reply #30 on:** October 14, 2004, 08:32:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I think y'all are ignoring SEVERAL key factors here...

Namely centripetal, centrifugal, and gravitational forces.

No matter WHAT the bank, a bomb will fly straigt out of the bomb bay due to centrifugal forces on the bomb and centripetal forces on the aircraft (due to lift generated by the wings) so nix that idea.
...
Don't change the laws of physics to suit yerselves.

No centrifugal forces act on the plane in a dive. More than that - if you point your nose at a spot on the ground and hold it there, you are producing less than 1G. The acceleration of the bomb in the direction out of the bomb bay will be:
g*cos(dive angle) = G * g
while it's acceleration forward inside the bay will be:
g*sin(dive angle) - a
where "a" is the forward acceleration of the plane.

so, the bomb will leave the bay slower and move inside more as you steepen the dive angle. The slow release of the bomb from air speed of 0 (inside the bay) to air speed of a couple hundred mph (at the bay door, and not to mention turbulance) will de-stabilize it completly and might even throw it back in.

In the famous dive bombing of the Lancs with the 7 ton earthquake bombs, the bomb was hanged right at the doorway (I vaugly remember it was partially outside) and was heavy enough not to be flung by the wind before it clears the door.

a good, clean release of a bomb is not such a trivial issue. I've seen a test film of a bomb released from an F-18 in a shallow dive (20-30 deg). The bomb released from the wing, sunk about 1 meter below the plane and started to develop a precession - this caused it to slow and be flung back and up, relative to the plane, still on the dive, and it hit the elevator of the plane.

Bozon

bj229r · « **Reply #31 on:** October 15, 2004, 06:24:53 AM »

I fly 17's a lot, and the only thing that rips wings is passin 330 or so, or serious G's from a slightly slower pullout---barrel rolls, etc, not a problem in here (i dont divebomb tho...THATS dweeby;)

Darkish · « **Reply #32 on:** October 15, 2004, 09:44:23 AM »

I'm in complete agreement with a max angle on the bomb drop - but start messing with the min drop height (for historic reasons) and I'm afraid I will have to insist that all fighter engagements take place over 15K.

xHaMmeRx · « **Reply #33 on:** October 15, 2004, 11:15:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Darkish
I'm in complete agreement with a max angle on the bomb drop - but start messing with the min drop height (for historic reasons) and I'm afraid I will have to insist that all fighter engagements take place over 15K.

There were a multitude of fighter engagements on the deck in all theaters.

There were a multitude of medium bomber missions at very low altitude in all theaters.

There were very few heavy bomber missions at very low altitude.

Like you, my biggest problem with the way the heavies are used now is the dive-bombing. I believe in the current multi-engine plane set, only the Ju-88 was designed to have the capability to dive bomb.

I can live with the low-level bombing but I believe that level bombers should have to a) be level when dropping and b) have someone in the bombardier's position looking through the bomb-sight when dropping.

Krusty · « **Reply #34 on:** October 15, 2004, 01:32:13 PM »

First of all SOMEBODY said that a BANKING PLANE (****NOT**** ****A**** ****DIVING**** ****PLANE****) would probably have the bombs fall through the side of the plane.

THIS WAS TO CORRECT THAT. NOT RELATED TO DIVE BOMBING!!!!!!!

And the trapeze on many dive bombers was because it WAS literally in a near vertical dive when the bombs were released. There was a chance that the bomb would hit the prop, but I believe it was also to add more speed to the bomb as well (to help ensure accuracy is my bet). In a near VERTICAL yeah the bomb is going to follow the path of the plane, both are headed straight down, no tangets needed. So if a stupid pilot backs off the throttle after release, WHAM there goes the prop (or BOOM there goes the plane? I'm not sure which).

Tilt · « **Reply #35 on:** October 15, 2004, 01:32:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bozon

In the famous dive bombing of the Lancs with the 7 ton earthquake bombs, the bomb was hanged right at the doorway (I vaugly remember it was partially outside) and was heavy enough not to be flung by the wind before it clears the door.
Bozon

The tall boy was usually dropped from 18,000 feet above target(as was the Grand slam) in order to gain the terminal velocity and degree of spin required to bury it prior to detonation.

The tall boy was contained fully within the bomb bay which had special bulged doors to suit it. 400/500 dropped

The grand slam was slung under the Lanc. 40/50 dropped

9 squadron became specialists in dropping Tallboys from a shallow dive however the destructive power of the tall boy was hampered when it was not able to bury its self first.

Given that. I would love to see tallboys added to AH provided the 18K + model was used to proscribe its effectiveness.

Krusty · « **Reply #36 on:** October 15, 2004, 01:33:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by xHaMmeRx
If that were true, Stukas and other dive-bombers wouldn't have needed the bomb rack that "threw" the bomb out to help miss the propeller arc. Also, there will be no centrifical force at 1 G.

Wrong. If the plane is in a 30 to 45 degree bank, the centripetal force is pulling the plane into the turn (that is why you bank to turn, the lift pulls you into the turn) and the centrifugal force on a released bomb makes it fly away from the plan (it does not have the lift pulling it in to the turn.

So even at 1G the forces are still there. They're just acting along a different plane

Tilt · « **Reply #37 on:** October 15, 2004, 01:37:02 PM »

I always assumed the Stuka lowered its bomb frame prior to release..........

Krusty · « **Reply #38 on:** October 15, 2004, 01:48:49 PM »

Neg, it was a gravity fed device that swung the bomb out and in front of the plane when the release was triggered. Same on the SBD, and one or more of the IJN planes as well (B5N or D3A1 don't remember much about IJN planes)

xHaMmeRx · « **Reply #39 on:** October 15, 2004, 01:57:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Wrong. If the plane is in a 30 to 45 degree bank, the centripetal force is pulling the plane into the turn (that is why you bank to turn, the lift pulls you into the turn) and the centrifugal force on a released bomb makes it fly away from the plan (it does not have the lift pulling it in to the turn.

So even at 1G the forces are still there. They're just acting along a different plane

I think you over estimate the amount of force that would be exerted during a bank. Ride in the back of a C-130 doing NOE before a jump sometime. When the plane banks, you fall to the side. I agree there will be some force pushing out and away, but gravity wins that fight.

No matter how much centrifical force is exerted, gravity still exerts a force straight down, causing the bomb to move that way in addition to any other direction. It would be impossible for it to move straight out unless the laws of physics have been changed.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #40 on:** October 15, 2004, 02:08:49 PM »

Wonder if any of this will get addressed on 2.01 given that another 4-engine divel bomber is being added.

Karnak · « **Reply #41 on:** October 15, 2004, 02:18:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Wonder if any of this will get addressed on 2.01 given that another 4-engine divel bomber is being added.

I'll actually be a bit surprised if some changes are not made in v2.01. They may not have enough effect, but I'll bet we see some modifications in v2.01.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #42 on:** October 15, 2004, 02:22:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
I'll actually be a bit surprised if some changes are not made in v2.01. They may not have enough effect, but I'll bet we see some modifications in v2.01.

Here's hoping.

I actually don't have much as much problem with the tactic save for the use of formations. If 17's and Lancs and 24's were trying this low-level stuff as solo ships, then it'd be a lot less of an issue. But the abuse of the formations really screws up the MA and I'm 99.99% sure that's not the use HT put them in for.

bozon · « **Reply #43 on:** October 15, 2004, 02:26:59 PM »

Quote

Wrong. If the plane is in a 30 to 45 degree bank, the centripetal force is pulling the plane into the turn (that is why you bank to turn, the lift pulls you into the turn) and the centrifugal force on a released bomb makes it fly away from the plan (it does not have the lift pulling it in to the turn.

banking is not the same as turning. The point was that if you dive bomb (nose is constantly pointing at the same spot on the ground) but the wing line is not parallel to the horizon, you might have problems releasing the bombs cleanly. This means that you have a banking limit as well as dive angle limit to the release.

Bozon

bustr · « **Reply #44 on:** October 15, 2004, 03:15:33 PM »

-From DoK-

Here's hoping.

I actually don't have much as much problem with the tactic save for the use of formations. If 17's and Lancs and 24's were trying this low-level stuff as solo ships, then it'd be a lot less of an issue. But the abuse of the formations really screws up the MA and I'm 99.99% sure that's not the use HT put them in for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any chance of getting a perk cost assigned to choosing to fly your bomber as a formation? Or would that be the swan song of buff operations ever in AH??????

Seems the current gunnery model has made killing buffs a wee tad hazzardous.