« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance  (Read 2694 times)

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2006, 04:02:39 PM »
This has been discussed before, but thumbs up for a great post AND backed up with data too :aok

Bozon
Logged
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline simshell

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2006, 04:24:10 PM »
:O :aok :D
Logged
known as Arctic in the main

Offline Wolf14

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2006, 04:54:03 PM »
Sweet post.

Anybody like to place bets as to this post hopefully fixing the issue of dive bombing level bombers?
Logged

Offline Shaky

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 550
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2006, 07:18:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by indy007
I don't think it'd be a terribly hard re-write of code. A simple if-then statement would suffice. Obviously, when you pickle off bombs, it checks to see if the bomb bay doors are open. If they're not, it gives you a message. Just add a simple "and (AoA < 13.5)" or whatever to the bomb drop function. If AoA is over 13 degrees or whatever is decided, just display the message "Unable to drop bombs, Angle too steep."



AOA refers to the wings angle to the reletive wind caused by forward movement. I could be diving vertically and have 0 dg AOA.

You need to check the pitchand bank angle of the plane. The AI (Attitude indicator) in the planes dash already shows this, which means its calculated by the FE already.
Logged
Political correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline NAVCAD

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 92
For sure. My High School Physics....
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2006, 08:54:20 AM »
A similar tactic was used by  A6 intruders for Nuke deployments (not that I can confirm or deny the presence of nukes on U.S. aircraft or installations...).

In order for the A6 to have the time to depart the blast area, it would release the weapon (bomb) in a high angle climb.  This would allow the bomb to continue climbing forward utilizing the ballistics and would allow the A6 enough time to finish an emmelman and depart (not that "I" would EVER want to try this...).  

Just some extra and probably usless info..:).

NAVCAD

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

"Life is tough, but it's tougher when your stupid"
Logged

Offline Mister Fork

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7255
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2006, 10:05:13 AM »
Any comments from the Peanut Gallery owners?

 :noid
Logged
"Games are meant to be fun and fair but fighting a war is neither." - HiTech

Offline 38ruk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
      • @pump_upp - best crypto pumps on telegram !
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2006, 12:03:03 PM »
Good read , cant argue with the data . I hope this will get it's due attention   38
Logged

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2006, 12:14:42 PM »
Sim, well done.  

hap
Logged

Online rabbidrabbit

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3904
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2006, 03:07:53 PM »
great post but I doubt it matters.  Last time I saw HT comment on it he said to the effect that there were many ways to game the game so there is no need to fix this one.
Logged

Offline Simaril

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2006, 09:35:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
great post but I doubt it matters.  Last time I saw HT comment on it he said to the effect that there were many ways to game the game so there is no need to fix this one.


It only matters if HTC is serious about making this a simulation.

AH2 is an excellent simulation of fighter combat. If that's all it claimed to be, then it would be perfectly reasonable to cheat on bomber and GV modelling.

But, AH2 claims to be a WW2 combat simulation.

I'm not picking at some petty detail. Fighters exist to bring guns to bear on enemies. Tanks are designed to get their main guns into combat.

And bombers are designed around their bomb bays. Its what the whole platform is about, carrying large ordnance loads long distances. HTC wouldnt deliberately cheat on the ammo load for an MG151, or the penetrating power of the M8s 37mm. Why is it OK to pretend bombers dont have bomb bays?


To reference an allegory from another thread, why should HT demand Pi be "3.14159" for fighters, and "about 3" for bombers?
Logged
Maturity is knowing that I've been an idiot in the past.
Wisdom is realizing I will be an idiot in the future.
Common sense is trying to not be an idiot right now

"Social Fads are for sheeple." - Meatwad

Offline Gianlupo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5154
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2006, 09:44:33 AM »
Great post Simaril, very nicely done. I'm with you! :)
Logged
Live to fly, fly to live!

Offline thndregg

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4027
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #26 on: January 10, 2006, 10:04:14 AM »
Excellent post, sir.

A good example of why this should be a reasonably accurate simulation with respect to game play.  It should be fun, but also it should reflect a "living history" of how and why things were done in WW2.
Logged
Former C.O. 91st Bombardment Group (Heavy)
"The Ragged Irregulars"

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2006, 10:19:20 AM »
Simaril nice post, BUT

First off, the bombs / shackles are not attached to the bomb rack by inverted U's.  You are thinking about the retainer on the bomb itself which simplified looks like an eyelet with wings cut down.  The shackles the bombs are attached to are attached to the bomb racks HSS Hooks that have a retainer that holds the shackle in place with a very small spring.  It was adequate to hold the bomb there and did not allow travel outside the hook unless disengaged.  The bombs are not held in place with any screws.  You are thinking of an external mount for a jabo.  Bombs in the bomb bay do move, if you tried to hold them in place, they would just get jammed because of the way they travel.

Secondly, the entire shackle mechanism does not release from the bomb rack.  Instead, a eltromechanical servo actuates a release mechanism which in turn moves a small arm that is engaged to a lever which extends out of the shackle mechanism.  This lever mechanically turns the two hooks engaged to the bombs eyelets and drops them.  There is no easy mechanical way to disengage the bombs on the 17 mechanically if the electrical circuit fails.  It was done individually and involved an individual hanging out over the open bomb bay from the cat walk while using something other than his finger (imagine the snap when those levers release) and actually actuating a trip spring on the release mechanism arm to mechanically release the lever and allowing the bomb to drop free.

Thirdly, level bombers are ONLY limited to dive angles of release while they are flying in a straight line.  As soon as they pull back on the yoke / stick, they induce positive G's thereby allowing those bombs to release as they should, straight down from the bomb bay regardless of attitude of the airframe.  While I see what you are saying, and like the idea of preventing divebombing lancs / 17s / 24s /26's, and totally agree those airframes could not handle a dive bombing situation like we see in the MA.  The fact remains that more shallow dives than the MA were used on a lot of occasions in just about all airframes that drop bombs.

Either way, good post for the most part.  Thought you might like some facts to clarify those issues.
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Scootter

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: For sure. My High School Physics....
« Reply #28 on: January 10, 2006, 06:05:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by NAVCAD
A similar tactic was used by  A6 intruders for Nuke deployments (not that I can confirm or deny the presence of nukes on U.S. aircraft or installations...).

In order for the A6 to have the time to depart the blast area, it would release the weapon (bomb) in a high angle climb.  This would allow the bomb to continue climbing forward utilizing the ballistics and would allow the A6 enough time to finish an emmelman and depart (not that "I" would EVER want to try this...).  

Just some extra and probably usless info..:).

NAVCAD

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

"Life is tough, but it's tougher when your stupid"




But they were on an external rack and not in a bomb bay,  right? The A6 only had wing hard points IIRC.

The Vigalante had its bomb bay horazontal in between the engines and lunched its weapon aft.
Logged

Offline Badboy58

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance
« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2006, 06:26:48 PM »
Well written post. :aok
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »