Author Topic: B-17 Modeling Problems: Ordnance (Read 2695 times)

Simaril · « **Reply #30 on:** January 10, 2006, 07:43:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
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.

Thanks for the clarification. Didn't find as clear a description of the system anywhere, and honestly had to guess from the appearance. Thanks for the extra info.

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi

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.

Completely agree that "centrifugal" drops possible, within the limits of airframe tolerance. For the some buffs, that tolerance is VERY tight -- according to the B-24 pilot manual and associated documentation, pulling up at speeds greater than 275mph was VERY dangerous. In fact, the "backbone" of both the 17 and 24 had trouble handling rapid elevator TRIM changes, and pilots were told that even release of up elevator after dives of over 275mph could cause structural failure.

In the MA, this means that centrifugal delivery is almost irrelevant. If an MA pilot is under 275, he's not "dive bombing" at all -- and if he's over 275, when he pulls back to get the centrifugal drop the elevators should break and the planned "centrifugal" drop would fail.

_____________________

Please note that while others have focused on this information's implications re: lancstukas, that is NOT my central point at all. SInce making my first post, I've focused on the Lancaster -- and this bay is radically different than the 17's. In fact, implementation of bomb bay modelling in the Lancaster would likely have absolutely no effect on the dive bombing "problem," since the bay's long and relatively shallower dimensions would on average result in very generous pitch restrictions. (I'll post this when I have enough hard data to make it worthwhile; I'm also researching information on the bay dimensions for the B-26, the A-20, and the B-24.)

I just think that a simulation of AH2's quality should have SOME modelling of bomb bays. As I've said, the bomb bay is the entire reason this class of aircraft exists, and failing to model the bay at all is akin to ignoring the ballistics of the Tiger's 88mm.

I'm also trying to find out about airframe tolerances of actual airspeed, which I feel shuold be modelled better as well. For example, the B-17's de-icer boots should begin to lift from the wing and resonate enough to "cause structural failure" above 305mph; the engine cowl rings would fail at 420mph; the pilot's windscreen would fail at a speed above 305mph. In my early tests, the AH B-17 doesnt even show any "strain sounds" now until well over 360mph.

In any case, I appreciate the help of those with deeper knowledge than mine as I begin this search. I'm a realtive newb at aircraft research, and though I'm enjoying it I'm finding it is a very long and slow process.

GreenCloud · « **Reply #31 on:** January 10, 2006, 10:29:34 PM »

no that is all wrong ..

KEEP THE DIVEBOMBING LANCS ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!1

for the children!!!!!!!

Simaril · « **Reply #32 on:** January 11, 2006, 06:10:29 AM »

Bodhi...since youre here in the thread, a question.

Where do yuo guys find this stuff? I've got a moderate (if poorly focused) aviation library, and my local library is tied in to a loan system with several million books available. I've squeezed these resources fairly dry, but there are big holes in the info I can find. I've started looking more deeply in flight manuals, but even there some things arent readily available. Any tips on good resources?

I whipped my original post together over a day or two, and got sloppy on peripheral issues like the shackle system. From now on, you've reminded me to only say what I KNOW, and dont fudge to fill in teh blanks. (That attitude, i suppose, may disqualify me from posting on the intardnet -- but so be it.)

With regards,

Simaril

bozon · « **Reply #33 on:** January 11, 2006, 09:31:35 AM »

It's easy to calculate the drop angle of the bomb in the plane's frame of reference using g, G, plane forward acceleration and the dive angle (assuming it changes little in the time scale it takes the bomb to clear the bay). So this angle can be used for the restriction if "drop while pull" matters that much.

Bozon

Westy · « **Reply #34 on:** January 11, 2006, 10:24:01 AM »

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

IMO the simulation aspect was abandoned back in 2001.

But a respectful for your work and efforts on this issue which has been a serious gameplay problem (for a WWII aircombat pay-2-play game) for years.

Hope you don't end up feeling like Don Quixote as many other have on this issue and several others. Cause the dweeblings (who FAR outnumber sim minded players now) keep paying thier $14.95 to make dive bombers out of this games "four eng. heavy bombers" and IMO nothing is gonna interfere with that $$ flow.

-Westy

Pooface · « **Reply #35 on:** January 11, 2006, 10:53:02 AM »

im all for it!!:aok

Bodhi · « **Reply #36 on:** January 11, 2006, 11:12:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
Bodhi...since youre here in the thread, a question.

Where do yuo guys find this stuff? I've got a moderate (if poorly focused) aviation library, and my local library is tied in to a loan system with several million books available. I've squeezed these resources fairly dry, but there are big holes in the info I can find. I've started looking more deeply in flight manuals, but even there some things arent readily available. Any tips on good resources?

Simaril,

While I generally do not state it, I do work on and rebuild WW2 aircraft. 4 years ago, I worked on a B-17, quite extensively. One of my tasks was to recreate the bomb bay from one that had been stripped bare years prior. Spent a ton of time in the drawings, IPB, E+M, and Boeings processes manual. You learn a ton while working on this stuff.

Currently, I am working on an F4u-4 QEC and components for a P-38. My job is to know what I am working on, so, chances are, if I say it, I have seen it in writing.

slimey_J · « **Reply #37 on:** January 23, 2006, 11:38:23 AM »

Nice post. Here's to hoping that they implement at least some changes.

B@tfinkV · « **Reply #38 on:** January 25, 2006, 10:44:23 AM »

very good post.

here is a very sad, yet rather important example of the damage a bomb would do to an aircraft, admitedly not the craft that dropped the bombs, but still only after a few feet of free fall.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/tail3.htm

1st pic: bad time to drop bombs.

2nd pic: oh crap, sorry mates..

3rd pic: bail out! bail out! the bomb that hit the friendly aircraft can clearly be seen knocked off course by the collision, silouetted against the clouds.

4th: tragicly, this striken aircraft never made it home.

Bring realistic bombing methods and bomb damage to AH2!

Simiril for president!

Mugzeee · « **Reply #39 on:** February 14, 2006, 01:43:10 PM »

Holy Moly..... Well done Sim.
Give Us Bomb Bays

BlueJ1 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 21, 2006, 02:10:05 PM »

Simaril · « **Reply #41 on:** February 23, 2006, 03:22:24 PM »

To close out this issue from my standpoint, I'll quote from another thread in which HT responded. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157378)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Simaril
Krusty,

the limits arent arbitrary - they're historical. They were included in training manuals and were precisely defined.

Second, while the "pulling up" G-force displaced drop is correct from the standpoint of physics, from an engineering standpoint it doesnt apply in AH. Bombers with bays werre not phycially capable of pulling out with enough G's to make a meaningful difference in the bomb angle. (With the probably eception of the Ju-88, whcih was also intended fro dive bombing.) For example, a B-24 travelling over 275 mph could snap off its empennage by ADJUSTING VERTICAL TRIM. Theres simply no way it could do "toss bombing" the way you suggest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree Simaril, putting in what your proposition is arbtrary. I know about your tables but to only implement them with out implementing the real physics adjustements that those tables are generated from, would be a totaly arbitray adjustment.

2. people tend to greatly over state the angle of dive bombing buffs.

3. bombers can pull resonable g's, It all depends on how they are loading.

4. implementing the angles will not realy change game play lot, people will just learn to come down fast, level at 1k and drop that way.
So the next request will be (noden didn't work at that alt so it should be disabled) Followed by the next request ( for low level stuff they could use fixed sights so please implement that).

5. Implementing the F6 things would , make it so it is not posible to do mass formations drops. I.E. Drop when the lead does.

Finaly I do wish to do bombay modeling, But it is by no means just a quick simple implementation. Nore would it drasticly change game play. So hence it gets put low on the list. But to implement your request would go down an artifical limitation path.

HiTech

_____________________________ __________________

Fair enough, HT. Thanks for the response.

I know many have focused on the dive bombing heavies issue, and I'd joined in that chorus a year or so ago. Since digging up the data sheets, though, I've repeatedly said that implementation of bomb bay modelling woudl not impact that infrequent problem.

I had suggested the fixed angles without full physics for simplicity's sake...and honestly, if you guys expect to implement full physics modelling that's even better than I'd hoped for. WIth so many major tasks on the "to do" list, I can surely understand why this sits lower down.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue is closed. It'll be done when its done, and when its done it will be done right. Thats more than good enough for me.

P.S. check out the new sig

Reynolds · « **Reply #42 on:** August 11, 2006, 04:39:21 PM »

Okay, its been a long time since the last post, but i have a question. Im never in the ball turret when the bombs start to drop, but a freind of mine told me if you shoot the bombs, they detonate and kill you. Does that really happen? I thought this was relevant, because if thats true, it obviously shows that bombs have collisions already modelled.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #43 on:** August 11, 2006, 05:39:27 PM »

Great post. I took the time to read all the responses before making mine, and I am impressed with the wealth of knowledge this community has when it comes to aircraft in general and WWII aircraft in particular.

All that being said, how hard would it be to code the game to only allow the bombs to be dropped from the CALIBRATED BOMB SITE. In the game as soon as you go to the bomb site it auto levels the plane. It does allow for limited roll of the aircraft to allow for line up, but that's about all.

If it could be coded so that the calibration MUST be completed and all parameters in the "green" and the FE must be in the bomb site mode before the bombs would be allowed to drop, this alone would remove the dive bombing game the game aspect in the MA.

Obviously there would be a few acceptions to this rule such as the Ju-88 and the TBM which were able to dive bomb. Simple matter of not adding the code to those aircraft.

Would this idea work or am I talking out of my butt here? I ask because I'm NOT a programer and I don't know what would be involved to do this. It just seems a logical idea to me.

Simaril · « **Reply #44 on:** August 11, 2006, 08:40:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
Okay, its been a long time since the last post, but i have a question. Im never in the ball turret when the bombs start to drop, but a freind of mine told me if you shoot the bombs, they detonate and kill you. Does that really happen? I thought this was relevant, because if thats true, it obviously shows that bombs have collisions already modelled.

Bombs have enemy collisions modelled, but friendly collisions (and bullets) off. Occasionally you'll see someone burst out laughing on 200 because they cant believe they just got killed by a bomb hitting them in the air....

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
.....All that being said, how hard would it be to code the game to only allow the bombs to be dropped from the CALIBRATED BOMB SITE. In the game as soon as you go to the bomb site it auto levels the plane. It does allow for limited roll of the aircraft to allow for line up, but that's about all.....

It wouldnt be hard, but it wouldnt solve anything either. We gamers are more than clever enough to get a work-around for that rule. A BBS search would show you how this suggestion could be defeated.

More importantly, HiTech has said that dive bombing buffs are not a big issue for him. He has talked of putting in a penalty for suicidal bombing, reversing some of the damage if players die too soon after dropping, but that's about it.

In any case, the issues that I raised in this thread have been addressed, as the last few posts before yours outlined. HiTech wants to model bomb bays as real, physical objects (with walls, angles, gravity effects, bomb inertia, and everything) -- but that modelling project is farther down the list of tasks, and will not be addressed in the near future.

When it is addressed, I am certain it will be done right.