Remove drones from bombers

[Wolfala]

I don't see the fus. I agree with perking the formation option similar to the way its done on 234's. But for bombers being too fast, well - its part of their preflight planning phase. Takeoff, go masturbate for 15 minutes - level off at 15k, keep it firewalled and not worry about burning engines up, drop, descend, get coffee and land.

But for some of those bombers, mainly the ones I fly which are 234's - speed is life and usually the only defense. I rolled a 234 in at wavetop and sunk a CV which was trying to take a port of ours. It wasnt a straight drop, it was a dive toss of sorts - but it did the job - and AAA had a hellova time tracking an aircraft NOE doing 450 IAS.

Wolf

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by KTM520guy
Nobody told me about fast buffs. I want to fly some too. The ones I'm flying now only go about 200-225. I feel as though I've been left out.

Go with the suck and blow crowd...up Arados

Mace

[hubsonfire]

[APDrone]

Ok. I was filming.  Due to some conversations I felt prudent to remove text and vox.

To keep the file sizes down, I broke it into 2 pieces.  The first piece begins where sehob initially shows up on film roster ( 9k out ) and finishes when he is down.  2 minutes.

The second film begins when krusty appears on the film roster and ends with my demise.

Please note that in the second film, sehob is able to re-up and still get close enough to land hits on me again, 10.5 minutes after he first showed up on the film roster in the first clip.

My speed is 270 mph throughout the whole duration.  Altitude right at 15k give or take a couple hundred feet.

Krusty and sehob show 350+, as they claim.

The entire amount of time between sehob's first encounter and my debriefing in the tower is 11.5 minutes.

Sounds like there must be a time warp in knight=land to make it seem like 1/2 hour.

Enjoy.

Damn.. my gunnery sucked..

sehob

Krusty

[Krusty]

It was longer for me because I was following your dot on dar long before vis, and following your dot vis long before icon range.

[Furball]

Tempests could eat 152's alive down low.

yum yum, snacky snack.

152's were awesome at alt tho.  Shame thats the domain of the 14.

[Lye-El]

I don't attack bomber formations anymore unless I just happen to be in a favorable position to do so.

[AKWarp]

Well Krusty,

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I catch high buff formations all the time, even chasing them from behind.  Heck, I've caught buff formations that were over the field at 20K or more and I upped a dora and caught them.  Yeah, it took a while, but I got them.

When approaching the formation, I always approach from 1-2K higher and I hold that altitude and keep my distance 1.5 to 2K away until I get slightly ahead them or even before turning in and diving.  Have to keep the speed up so you aren't a sitting duck to their guns.

I'd say I get shot down on buff flying more than I make it back to base, and some times I never even get to the target.

I agree, unless you are already at altitude or watching radar, it is difficult if not impossible to get to them and kill them before they drop, but you have to figure how long they've taken to climb to that altitude as well.  It takes a lot longer in buffs....

[AKWarp]

Concerning the TA-152.  I don't know how heavy they are in real life, but those long, high aspect ratio wings should provide some serious lift at lower altitudes.  The only issue with high aspect ratio wings is with angle of attack.  These kinds of wings have very small AoA limits and tend to stall quickly and voilently when AoA ventures into the stall range.  So, although the lift is there, it really isn't suited for hard turning, even at lower altitudes due to the AoA issues.  Fast rates of turn require fast angle change and this requires a wing that can handle higher AoA than "glider" type wings can deal with.

Conversely, low aspect ratio wings, such as the delta wings on some of the Mirage fighters and the old F-102 do very well with very high AoA.  Unfortunately, their lift ratio is far less than high aspect ratio and for maximum use of the design, very high power to weight ratios are required.

The spitfire probably has the most efficient wing design of the planes in AH.  Elliptical wings are very efficient across a broad range of speed and AoA.  It also helps that the spit has decent power to weight ratio.

The P-51 wing has advantages of its own.  I believe it was one of the first laminar flow designs, so it is very thin in cross section (much less drag) and is capable of pretty high AoA (which helps the pony to turn well, albeit for short periods).

[LePaul]

Translated:  Waaaaah my bomber interception skills stink.  It CANT BE ME, it HAS to be the bombers!  They must change because, umm, even tho no one else is posting issues....umm, its not fair that I, umm, like, suk killing bombers.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

People are having no problems shooting down my Lancs, B24s and Ar234s.

Maybe you should wing up with those fellas?

There are many many flyers in here that have turned me from bomber pilot into "country walking pedestrian"  

[Booz]

I dont see the problem either, I'm about 75-7 vs the big buffs and no where near the best. Hardly any buff group I've decided to attack has ever gotten home.

[Krusty]

I'm 44 and 4 for bombers last I checked. Like I said I'm decent at killing them. Regardless they're still too fast.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by AKWarp
Concerning the TA-152.  I don't know how heavy they are in real life, but those long, high aspect ratio wings should provide some serious lift at lower altitudes.  The only issue with high aspect ratio wings is with angle of attack.  These kinds of wings have very small AoA limits and tend to stall quickly and voilently when AoA ventures into the stall range.  So, although the lift is there, it really isn't suited for hard turning, even at lower altitudes due to the AoA issues.  Fast rates of turn require fast angle change and this requires a wing that can handle higher AoA than "glider" type wings can deal with.

Some good observations but I disagree that high-aspect ratio wings are not suited for hard turning.  They actually are exceptionally well suited for sustained turn performance due to their efficiency.  Regarding AOA, what matters is the lift generated at critical AOA not the AOA itself and the high-aspect ratio wing will generate far more lift at critcal AOA than a low-aspect wing will.  Lift generates G which generates turn rate.  I realize this is overly simplistic but AOA has nothing to do with it except provide the wing the conditions necessary to generate lift.  Another way to look at it is that a low-aspect wing operates at very high AOA because it has to.

Generally speaking, a high-aspect ratio wing will generate far more lift than a low aspect wing AND it will do it for longer because it's more efficient.  A delta wing (low aspect) for instance can generate high instantaneous turn at very high AOA but it bleeds like a stuck pig doing it because it's inefficient and requires high AOA (and power) to generate lift.  A high aspect wing turns better but has higher drag penalties at high speed (particularly as you approach Mach1) and there is a point at which it gets too thick due to the structural requirements of a very long wing.  

A good compromise would be the F-14.  The F-14A was very underpowered but was a highly capable dogfighter because of its variable wing.  Look at the aspect ratio with the wings out.  Very similar to the aspect ratio of the TA-152.  With the wing out the F-14 could turn better (particularly at low altitude) than higher powered fighters like the F-15.  With the wing back at high speed it had very low drag.  The best of both worlds particularly after it got the higher thrust GE-F110 engines.

There are lots of things in play here but it seems to me the TA-152 underperforms given it's numbers and design.

Mace

[hubsonfire]

Krusty, while I'll agree that bombers are given all sorts of crutches that fighters aren't, you're really reaching now. Historical power settings and such just don't apply here. There are no mechanical failures, no downtimes for maintenance, no quality control or parts availability issues. There is nothing that would discourage anyone from flying anything at less than maximum power, with the exception of fuel load. Given that, bombers running WFO are no less realistic than fighters running WFO.

So, were we to make bombers fly at max cruise, we'd have to make fighters run at max cruise, and you'd still be in the same boat, only it would be slower.

Mace pretty much said that already, but he was using a lot of multi syllabic words, and I wasn't having any of that. He's right though.

Next time, get alt or a jet.

God, I hate having to side with the buffdweebs. I feel dirty.

[Kitteh]

I was gunning in a B17 with someone else flying, and a lone P51 was shooting at us constantly and never even seemed to damage us, though most of his shots hit, and I shot him down too quickly. A little unbalanced for a sole B17 to take out a P51, no? He could have been a newbie, but that doesn't excuse the fact that after shooting us dozens of times it only took out one engine.