B-29 Super Fortress

[Nemisis]

Yes, but most newbs won't wast the time to climb high enough to avoid fighters, and C-47's are the most vulnerable planes in the game. Besides, most of them don't know good bombing tequnique and will drop a single bomb on a hanger and think they just killed it. One solution to that problem would be to disable formations with it. That way people who want the PLANE not the bombload can fly it, and you still have the lanc to drop a whole crap load of ord on some poor saps head.

[TheAce]

Perk the ord say 10-20 perks a bomb? That way even if you carry only one bomb you still loose points, which will reduce the amount of time you can fly it before you have to restock perks, further more keeping it out of that hands of "squeekers". Perk the plane and bombload.....

[Nemisis]

You still have the old bomber vets who have trillions of perks amassed over a 7yr carrear.

And that would be unrealistic. It would still be armed with 1000 pounders.

I still say disabling formation would take care of the problem. A lanc formation could carry over double the B-29's load. And a formation of B-24's could carry 2000lbs more. So no one can complane that it would be uber except for it's 20mm's.

[Vudak]

Just give it an outrageously high perk price and everything will work itself out after the first few months.  Before it works out, we will at least have something new to complain about.

[Nemisis]

If it can't do as much as a formation of B-24's then why should it be perked. We should have a basic package and charge 400 perks per plane after the first. And if you want a nuke to go with that then you have to pay 1000000 trillion perks per plane and each bullet you have in the defensive armament.

[Rich46yo]

Yeah all those ords and no matter how many you drop on a hangar its still only down for 15 mins. CVs respawn, cities and industry rebuild, and you can even jump into a new airplane should yours get shot down.

How many you think have the patience to climb to 30,000' in bombers? Very few. Besides the other bombers can fly that high too.

Anyway the thing is in the 2 &1/2 years since Ive been in this game we have had one thing happen with bombers. The B-25 was added. Thats it! No other new ones, no additional perk ones, not even any remodeled ones.

B29s, TU-2s, A-26s, HE-111s, Bettys, remodeled B-26s....whatever! We need movement in the bomber area. We need a new perkie bomber and we need a Russian one. We definitely need something!

[trigger2]

I still say disabling formation would take care of the problem. A lanc formation could carry over double the B-29's load. And a formation of B-24's could carry 2000lbs more. So no one can complane that it would be uber except for it's 20mm's.

Specifications (Lancaster)

Crew: 7: pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners
Length: 69 ft 5 in (21.18 m)
Wingspan: 102 ft (31.09 m)
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)
Wing area: 1,300 ft² (120 m²)
Empty weight: 36 828 lb (16,705 kg)
Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 240 kn (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
Range: 2,700 nmi (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m)
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.082 hp/lb (130 W/kg)
Armament


Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations
Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000 lb (6,300kg) or 22,000 lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay.

Specifications (B-29)
 
Boeing B-29 SuperfortressData from Quest for Performance

General characteristics

Crew: 11: (A/C)Airplane Commander, Pilot, flight engineer (a rated pilot), bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar operator, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m)
Wing area: 1,736 sqft (161.3 m²)
Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg)
Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg -- 135,000 lb plus combat load (144,000 lb on record))
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241
Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²)
Aspect ratio: 11.50
Performance

Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h)
Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nmi, 5,230 km)
Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nmi, 9,000 km, (record 5,839 mi, 5,074 nmi, 9,397 km))
Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m)
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.12 lb/sqft (337 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8
Armament


Guns:

10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position
B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout


Should say it all...

[Nemisis]

You never said a thing about the B24 wich with a formation can carry more than my suggested single B-29. AND you said you don't really care about the cannons which is what is mostly changed in the armament.

[moot]

We already have mostly allied bombers.  Something like half a dozen fighters or maybe 2-3 Tu-2 sized bombers could be added instead of the B-29.

[5PointOh]

you didnt see it in the last patch?

[Vadjan-Sama]

No need to say why we don't need the B-29, they already said... the main point is that we don't need another heavy US bomber we have enough heavy bombers, we need heavy/midle Russian, Italian, Japanese and German midle bombers. (aka PE-8, TU-2, HE-111, ME-410, P.108, SM.79...) before the B29, we have a lot of holes in the bombers set just to add another-we-already-have-type bomber.



 

[SirFrancis]

you didnt see it in the last patch?

no

[FYB]

No need to say why we don't need the B-29, they already said... the main point is that we don't need another heavy US bomber we have enough heavy bombers, we need heavy/midle Russian, Italian, Japanese and German midle bombers. (aka PE-8, TU-2, HE-111, ME-410, P.108, SM.79...) before the B29, we have a lot of holes in the bombers set just to add another-we-already-have-type bomber.



 

I hate to come in a burst your bubble, but you know everyone here already knows you copied the rest of our posts?

Don't worry though, you sound very smart. 

I still give this thread a FAIL.

[Nemisis]

No need to say why we don't need the B-29, they already said... the main point is that we don't need another heavy US bomber we have enough heavy bombers, we need heavy/midle Russian, Italian, Japanese and German midle bombers.

Didn't you get the email? HT said no jap or italian heavies. It's like the first comandment in AH2.

[Denholm]

no