B-29 Super Fortress

[Hap]

I donīt want it!

--------------------

Just curious: If (!!!!) HTC will bring in this monster-uber-bomber, how about the runways. Do they have be longer for starting and landing? Do the hangers should be repositioned, because of the wingspan? I just think, that the current airfields in AH are not suitable for a B-29. 

Regards
SF

And with a flick of a switch or some 1's and 0's in the right place, HTC can make the B29 do what it wants.  Just like flying pt boats, fokker's, and sharks.

[AKP]

YIKES!!! This post was up for 3 days before I got to it....

[Skulls22]

Need to start counting the days apart of b-29 threads

[Denholm]

On average, 14 days.

For reasons as shown below, the B-29 won't be arriving soon.

[Skulls22]

what game is that?

[oakranger]

BRING ON THE B-29!

[Denholm]

what game is that?

You sir, are looking at the future of history.

[Chalenge]

Now that the game has more hard points defined for bombs and rockets it is possible to finally add the Superfortress. The problem is the noobs will never stop asking for the nuke and so the B-29 (unfortunately) will never be in AH. 

[Saxman]

One solution would be to make it ACT like the real bomb.

You better climb to 32,000ft. And then once you drop it, better dive and pull around VERY hard to get enough separation, or else *POP*

Then make the B-29 a 500-perk plane.

[Nemisis]

On average, 14 days.

For reasons as shown below, the B-29 won't be arriving soon.
(Image removed from quote.)

Come on, every one know B-29 and nukes are different wishes.

[Chalenge]

Have you never heard the phrase 'give them an inch and they will take a mile?'

[Nemisis]

Yeah, but thats a hell of a big mile..... Hell of a big inch too. Lets face it, unless hitech decides to add them just to make this one post wrong, we are NEVER getting nukes....

[Jayhawk]

I gotta agree that it's just as simple as leaving the nuke out.  We don't have incendiary bombs for a reason, we don't have those big dam busters for a reason, we wouldn't have a nuke for a reason.

We don't have the B-29 for a reason too but I wouldn't say the nuke is the reason why.

[Nemisis]

I gotta agree that it's just as simple as leaving the nuke out.  We don't have incendiary bombs for a reason, we don't have those big dam busters for a reason, we wouldn't have a nuke for a reason.

We don't have the B-29 for a reason too but I wouldn't say the nuke is the reason why.

wow, someone who isn't a member of the "Give us the B-29!!!!!!" crowd agrees with me on something related to the B-29.

[oakranger]

What i am wondering is, who ever wished the B-29 with nukes in the first place?  Two dam atomic bombs where used by it and all the sudden we have people that are afread to have the B-29.

OK, so what if we do get it.  For those that protest it, are you going to quit AH, whine all the time about it, or suck it up and accept it that we have it?