Author Topic: wow  (Read 760 times)

Offline wingman9

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
wow
« on: March 18, 2006, 09:26:00 AM »
That new b-17 looks pretty great. Does anyone know the bomb load on it? I saw the pictures and it looked like 24 1000 pounders but i couldnt tell if it was 1000 pounds or 100 pounds of bombs.

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
wow
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2006, 10:34:08 AM »
no change in ammmo Still 24 100 pounders

Offline Hwkeye

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 256
I love how the new skin...
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2006, 11:03:38 AM »
...shows where the port side of the plane has been repaired with the wingtip and elevator from another plane.

This sucker looks like it has seen action!  WTG to all the contributed to it's creation.

Offline wingman9

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
wow
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2006, 11:28:46 AM »
yeah i love that skin. I love the yellow tips on the wing. I will be using this a lot more than i use the b-17 now i think. :)

Offline xbrit

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
wow
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2006, 08:05:01 AM »
You mean we have bombers here ??

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
wow
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2006, 08:21:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by xbrit
You mean we have bombers here ??


Yes we do but you can usually only see them from the ground as if you climb to more then 5K you would have to fly inverted to spot them.

Though I did see and shoot down one the other day doing loops over a town and trying to divebomb one of our GVs Stuka Style at a feild we were trying to capture.

with all due respect to HTC and crew. Untill they have fixed the 17 to be unable to do such things, they havent done anything to the 17 no matter how pretty or accurately looking they make it.

While the 17 may have been able too do loops empty. I highly doubt it was able to do them with a full bombload of even 100 pounders.
Not to mention I doubt the crew would be very happy with such a manuver;)
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Sketch

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1351
      • http://www.arabian-knights.org
wow
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2006, 09:07:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by xbrit
You mean we have bombers here ??


Yeah, it's those really big planes! :D   Those are not Spit-16's on steroids....  :O
~Sketch~//~Arabian Knights~
Sketch's Gunsight Collection 2008
Sketchworks Arabian Knights Soundpack
~Oderint Dum Metuant~

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
wow
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2006, 09:49:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by xbrit
You mean we have bombers here ??


You see, DREDIOCK cant beat them in the air so he rallies tirelessly to ban them, mute them or make them so all they can do is die.

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
wow
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2006, 04:34:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by LePaul
You see, DREDIOCK cant beat them in the air so he rallies tirelessly to ban them, mute them or make them so all they can do is die.


LOL Not quite. I beat my fair share.

Just want them to fly like they are supposed to fly.

I want ot see the flight data that shows a B-17s could do loops with a full bombload. And still be able to drop its bombs.

then I want o see the reports of the 17s that did

I'd like to see the After action reports of crew (including gunners/Bombadier/Navagator) that actually did loops in a 17 intentionally.

Fact of the matter is they DID NOT DO THESE THINGS!
At least not intentionaly And certainly not with a full bombload.

A loaded 17 had a tough time just getting airborne let alone doing areobatics once airborne.

I have been able to find only 1 instance of a 17 doing a loop during WWII.
And that was AFTER it dropped its load on its target ,wasnt done intentionally, only happened after another plane collided with it, Went into a spin afterwards the pilots were only barely able to regain control of and almost crashed.
and in the process by no small miracle the only injury they had was the waist gunner broke his leg.

Point is. these planes did NOT do these thigns intentionally and I Very highly doubt with actual real armed bombs on board they were able to.

So you see if has nothing to do with me trying to ban them.
I just dont beleive they should be allowed to do utterly absurd unrealistic manuvers.
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
wow
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2006, 04:43:27 PM »
Be careful how you group your bomber drivers.  While I fly more fighter/JABO sorties than bomber lately, I also roll my eyes when i see buffs flying in on the deck or doing the lame dive-egg-and-reup over the town.  

Most of us bomber guys actually climb to target, use the bombsight and even try to land!

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
wow
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2006, 04:55:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by LePaul
Be careful how you group your bomber drivers.  While I fly more fighter/JABO sorties than bomber lately, I also roll my eyes when i see buffs flying in on the deck or doing the lame dive-egg-and-reup over the town.  

Most of us bomber guys actually climb to target, use the bombsight and even try to land!


Reread my posts. I didnt. I said "usually"
Gotta admit you see alot more buffs under 10K then over.

I dont even mind that so much as that way I dont have to try to climb to 20K to get at them

I dont want to see them made lame. I just would rather they not be able to do things they didnt do.
Divebombing is a real stretch at best.
Loops are outright rediculous.
And no question about it. This 17 I saw was doing loops.
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty