B-29 Super Fortress

[Serenity]

What is the current length of the runways in Aces High?

Based on the Given:

OAT 38deg C
Sea Level
115,000 lbs Avg GTOW
Concrete Dry Runway
No Wind
25 Deg Flaps
47.5 Map
50' Obstacle chart used here.

Take Off distance for the B29 is 4,620 feet.

So depending on the runway lengths this might poke a hole in the whole airfield Re Do argument.

Also I highly doubt the modeling of the aircraft was done with 38 Deg C in mind.  If ISA was used to calculate performance models then the TO Distance for the B29 would be less.  More like 4200'.  Keep in mind the GTOW here was mid range, (115,000 lbs).

Obviously if you are going to use GTOW of 190,000 lbs @ ISA +0 you'd be in trouble getting off the ground here in Aces.  You'd be talking a TO Distance of 12,000 feet.

What would be FUN IMO for many Aces Pilots would be the considerations you would have to consider with a long range heavy bomb load out!  It would be very PRONOUNCED with the B29 and could be very educational for many new pilots, and veteran pilots who would be new to bombers.

That said it would be another request that ammo load outs (If the B29 was to be heavily perked) could be adjustable as well and movable too!  Maybe you would prefer to have more ammo in the rear guns than all of it up front?  Or if not movable then give us more ammo in the rear, belly, and top guns if possible.

Anyway    I think after reading all the posts we ought to have the B29.  I think it would be very interesting.  I'm also a no nook guy too! 

Keep in mind that a big limiting factor in how the B-29 would be used is if it were base-restricted, similar to how the ME-163 is base-restricted.  Nobody can deny that the ME-163 is an holy terror to any bombers that approach the HQ.  It's godlike, and really nothing can touch it.  But it's not generally available everywhere, so that's fine.

If the B-29 had to take off from either a zone base (a little closer to the front) or even the HQ bases, then missions with the B-29 would take a lot of time.  That in itself would be a limiting factor to how much it's used, because most pilots in this game don't have the patience for a long bombing mission.  And many of those who have the patience, don't have the interest.

So if a guy wants to take off from a zone base 4 sectors away from his target, fly up with 25k or whatever, drop a metric crapload of bombs on a strat target, then spend another 30 or 40 minutes flying back, then let him.  Who's it hurting?

And, limited this way, the B-29 couldn't be used like a Lancstuka for bombing tanks, unless of course it's the zone base under attack, and the Lancstuka driver has some perkies to spare.

Seriously, the B-29 was used in WWII enough to meet the criteria, there are valid use cases for it, and, properly limited, it doesn't have to unbalance the game or anything.  And it gives the guys who love to fly bombers around one more arrow in their quiver.  And yes, there are people who pay their $15 a month to fly bombers around.  It doesn't really matter whether any given individual who posts in this thread likes doing that or not - there are customers who pay every bit as much to play this game as anyone else, who do.

Bring on the B-29, skip the nuke.  Let the organized, high-altitude B-29 missions begin. 

I used to be a stead-fast anti-B-29 guy, but these two posts are making me seriously reconsider. Two very good points made.

[phatzo]

what he said..../\

[JETBLST]

Forget the nukes, well maybe for a scenerio.

Bring in the B-29 and make it so that only a few major bases can operate them. As one side wins and wins, like when the Bish are doing their  horde thing, would push the action farther and farther from B-29 bases which would translate into less use 29 by the winning side.

Not that a whole lot have the patience to fly a 29 the way it should be. Most will rise to 15k and then run with it, making it just another bomber set at low Alt. And imagine a gaggle of 15yos in 190s and Mustangs seeing B-29s at 12k ? It would be like "Free blood day" at the Vampire convention. Perked 100 to 150 apiece will prevent a lot the bomb and bailing we already see, and nobody is going to upp them for CVs because their bases will be to far away and CVs are already killed easily with existing bombers. Ones that can be upped far closer to the CV already.

I would bet most B-29 runs would be made by dedicated bomber squads flying against strats, or at least squads wanting to try something different. Many would probably fly them one at a time.

It would be a great addition and would increase legitimate heavy bomber operations while cutting back on some of the bomber dweebery we see in the MAs now.

I agree with this totally!  Well thought out and I think this is how the 29 ought to be used if added.  I'm thinking not just the B29 be perked but maybe all should be to some extent to keep the bombing dweebery (<--  ) down to a minimum.  There should be cost to the bombing and ditching aspect.  As folks do not just up a 262, so should it be with other aircraft too.

[JETBLST]

The runways in AH are 1 mile long.  They cannot be made longer, as they are the same distance end to end of a terrain grid square.  Objects (such as runways) cannot cross over a grid line, or they do not work properly and are not allowed when building a terrain.  I seriously doubt they would entirely redo the terrain making system just to add one uber plane.  Plus, it cannot fit inside the bomber hanger, another prerequisite.  Oh let me guess, y'all want em to redo the bomber hangers then too.  For one plane....

 

Thanks for answering my question Ranger!!!

Now why can't the hangars on the fields that are NOT ABLE TO BE CAPTURED (ONLY) be modified to handle the B-29?  Is that too much to ask for all the customers here who want the B-29?  Keep in mind my prior post about load outs, take off performance etc.  I think it would be great fun to have to practice taking off with various fuel, ammo, bomb, load outs to see what a particular pilot can get his plane to do!
Furthermore, you would have to really plan out and carryout your missions with great care.  IF perked with a good amount of points you would want to bring some buddies as escorts or have them wing up with you when you get close to your run.  The other posts about being more of a strat bomber is spot on!  I think it would also make more use of the whole strat concept here in the game if they were able to be brought down a little more efficiently by the enemy.  You'd also have to defend strats a little more, adding more dimension to the game. 

So if you go back and see, with a medium loadout.  Takeoffs would be dicey and require skill and airmanship.  Sorry but no auto takeoffs here!  You'd have to go for the long haul, high altitude.

One last thought.  What if you made them juicy targets too?  So that the pilot who can take them down gets extra perkies too?  With that addition would that make it more attractive to add the 29 to those who oppose it so staunchly?

Hey, again thanks for the answer Ranger!   

[USCH]

As most people i always up my Me163 out of the fighter hanger..... just like id up a B29 out of a flipping bomber hanger....

[sethipus]

Actually, my FSO squad will often up fighters from the fighter hangar and then taxi to the end of the runway, gather up into a nice gaggle, and launch together.  It's not necessary, and it's not like we're totally hard-core realism simulators, but hey it's FSO, and it's kinda fun.

[100goon]

god ur all kitten killers

[100goon]

[Beefcake]

Don't forget that buffs with formations get screwed up when they take off from hangers.

[Kazaa]

Maybe only have the B29s take off from "LARGE" AFs ?

[caldera]

(Image removed from quote.)

I saw a sign today that proves we're getting the B-29...

[Serenity]

Actually, my FSO squad will often up fighters from the fighter hangar and then taxi to the end of the runway, gather up into a nice gaggle, and launch together.  It's not necessary, and it's not like we're totally hard-core realism simulators, but hey it's FSO, and it's kinda fun.

Ya know, that sounds like fun!

[Enker]

I saw a sign today that proves we're getting the B-29...




































(Image removed from quote.)

Hey, it's my kitty Dinnah!

[Plazus]

The runways in AH are 1 mile long.  They cannot be made longer, as they are the same distance end to end of a terrain grid square.  Objects (such as runways) cannot cross over a grid line, or they do not work properly and are not allowed when building a terrain.  I seriously doubt they would entirely redo the terrain making system just to add one uber plane.  Plus, it cannot fit inside the bomber hanger, another prerequisite.  Oh let me guess, y'all want em to redo the bomber hangers then too.  For one plane....

 

Keep in mind that HTC is currently working on a new terrain package. Whos to say that maybe the grids will be larger? Perhaps with this new terrain, it may be possible to create a larger base, assuming they either make the grids larger, or fix the bug that prevents objects from crossing grid lines. I have seen some objects cross grid lines in the current package. Note the roads that which supply convoys drive on. The roads travel many miles between strats and bases and the roads are continuous. Also dont forget about the railroads as well.

Anyways, if this new terrain package comes out, it may be possible for the B29 to be considered in the game by HTC.

Seriously, why all the trash talk and dissin' on the B29? Take the nuke away, and give it the regular bomb load. Perk the ride, and maybe we will see a greater appreciation of bombers.

[Kazaa]

10 year anniversary is around the corner, maybe we’ll get a present from HTC.