Author Topic: Memphis Belle (Read 1116 times)

Latrobe · « **on:** November 03, 2006, 09:47:58 PM »

has any1 ever thought of making a Memphis Belle skin? i would but my computer would take too long to do it and i dont have the paitence

Kermit de frog · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2006, 10:09:49 PM »

i think the memphis belle was a B17 F MODEL.

Aces High only has the G model.

HTC would therefore not accept any skins of the memphis belle.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2006, 11:25:45 PM »

The Belle is most definately an F model, and an early one at that

Reynolds · « **Reply #3 on:** November 04, 2006, 12:26:00 PM »

Give us the 'F' then? lol

Stang · « **Reply #4 on:** November 06, 2006, 04:14:29 PM »

I wish they would have. Wouldn't have taken too much extra work to model it when they redid the 17's I woulda thought.

Krusty · « **Reply #5 on:** November 06, 2006, 04:24:36 PM »

There's really not that much of a performance difference between the two. Then again, they did the nearly identical P-38J when we have the L... So who knows the logic behind HTC's decisions? Maybe they just wanted to get "up to date" before adding any new stuff.

We could get an -F later.

rogerdee · « **Reply #6 on:** November 06, 2006, 04:46:48 PM »

when they did the b24 i remember talking to one of the skinners involved and asking how easy it would be to change it to a b24d.

maybe i was being a litle wound up but the person talking to me was told to keep quite about a b24d by a memmber of staff as we chatted.

so you never know what might turn up when combat tour starts rolling

Krusty · « **Reply #7 on:** November 06, 2006, 06:33:01 PM »

Or they might just have a policy of not letting skinners talk about new plane models, because they have no say in the matter

But I agree, they've been playing it close to the chest, for the most part. They may have an ace or two up their collective sleeves.

Reynolds · « **Reply #8 on:** November 07, 2006, 11:54:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
There's really not that much of a performance difference between the two.

Yay! I get to show my smartiness! Anything with a * next to it means one model is different from the other:

Alright, B-17G:

Accomodations: 10
Powerplant: Wright R-1820-97 Radial Engines,
1,200 HP at 25,000 feet
*Empty Weight: 36,135lb
*Gross Weight: 65,500lb
*Max Speed: 287mph at 25,000 feet
*Cruising Speed: 150 mph at 5,000 feet
*Service Ceiling: 36,500 feet
*range: 2,000 miles with 6,000lb of ordinance

B-17F:

Accomodations: 10
Powerplant: Wright R-1820-97 Radial Engines,
1,200 HP at 25,000 feet
*Empty Weight: 34,000lb
*Gross Weight: 56,500lb
*Max Speed: 299mph at 25,000 feet
*Cruising Speed: 160 mph at 5,000 feet
*Service Ceiling: 37,500 feet
Range: 1,300 miles with 6,000lb of ordinance

According to MY data, the only superiority the B-17G has over the B-17F is in range and firepower, (F has no chin turret) and so the F would actually be an interesting addition, especially to early war. Of course, due to this data, it would have to be perked in EW.

Ball · « **Reply #9 on:** November 07, 2006, 01:02:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
According to MY data, the only superiority the B-17G has over the B-17F is in range and firepower, (F has no chin turret) and so the F would actually be an interesting addition, especially to early war. Of course, due to this data, it would have to be perked in EW.

good early war heavy would be the Short Stirling, the B17-F did not start combat ops til late 1942, Stirling was in service in 1940, with operations starting in early 1941!

http://www.pegelsoft.nl/tech.htm

17,000lb bomb load isnt bad either

Kermit de frog · « **Reply #10 on:** November 07, 2006, 01:10:03 PM »

What about the B17 E that flew in 1942.

Or the crappy B17C?

Krusty · « **Reply #11 on:** November 07, 2006, 01:44:28 PM »

The F is a whopping 12MPH faster at top speed, at 25k.

Keep in mind it lists CRUISE speeds. These were the speeds it historically flew combat missions with. Dream on if you ever expect to see those speeds realistically modeled in Aces High. Fighters normally had 200+mph closure rates on bombers, now they can barely make 20MPH closure rates most of the time.

So, 12mph aside, very little difference, aside from the flex-mounted nose gun, and missing cheek guns. The end results would be a bomber that's too damn fast to catch, no matter what you're flying, as long as we're talking about inside Aces High.

Reynolds · « **Reply #12 on:** November 08, 2006, 02:41:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
The end results would be a bomber that's too damn fast to catch, no matter what you're flying, as long as we're talking about inside Aces High.

Exactly

Ball · « **Reply #13 on:** November 08, 2006, 11:12:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
Exactly

fly a freaking arado then?

Reynolds · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2006, 12:55:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ball
fly a freaking arado then?

I do. A lot. But I would rather fly a 17F than an Arado.