Bombs dont lose E

[bloom25]

A couple things:

First of all a bomb has so much mass it wouldn't slow down much in the horizontal direction.  The lower the alt the less it will be effected.

Secondly, the Norton bombsight corrected for this IRL.

That said, the bombs would not land in a perfectly straight line for sure.  They wouldn't be that far off though.  All the bombs are going to have basically the same forces acting on them, thus they will tend to fall in a straight line.

It is kind of a gameplay issue, but IMO we should increase the blast radius a little and build in some dispersion for very high alt bombers.

About the only thing that currently really bugs me about bombs is the difficulty in killing Osties with them.  You have to get REALLY close to kill (or even hurt) them.  Osties have an open turret, a bomb would easily kill or wound the gunner if it landed anywhere nearby.  The treads would also be blown to bits and the thing would probably get flipped over.  I've driven the ostwind to protect bases from time to time and I don't think I've ever had my gunner wounded by a MG armed aircraft.  Even a 30 cal bullet should be able to kill the gunner.



------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

[TheWobble]

 

All the bombs are going to have basically the same forces acting on them, thus they will tend to fall in a straight line.

Actually thats only true if you drop the 1 at a time, a salvo of bombs will almost always clang and bang into eachother causing some more drift (thats why they dont arm till well after being released) plus each bombs had a bit of wobble upon leaving the bay, that oo effects them all differently.

plus there is no way they would land directly under the plane, wind resistance by itslef would cause them to drop back abit, much less the other factors.

[BBGunn]

It's been a long time since physics class for me but how can bombs loose energy when they are accelerating toward earth?  Yeah they could be affected by wind etc but they are gaining E not loosing it.  

[TheWobble]

   

's been a long time since physics class for me but how can bombs loose energy when they are accelerating toward earth? Yeah they could be affected by wind etc but they are gaining E not loosing it.

Ok lets see here <try to explane> they stay RIGHT under the bomber when you drop them right.. ok so they are going foreward at the same speed the bomber is going..correct..ok they are also falling downward at the same time..ok so they are staying even with the bomber while they are traveling at an angle away from it..so not only are they not losing ANY foreward momentum they actually gaining some, in other words the bombs are going faster foreward than the bomber that dropped them.  Ya see what I mean ill illustrate..

   

A= The foreward distance the bomb travels before it hits the ground.

B= The downward distance the bomb travels before it hits the ground.

C= The total distance the bomb travels both horazantally and vertically before striking the ground.

D= the comparison to total distance traveled by the bomb as compared to the total distance traveled by the plane.


The bomb cannot gain and energy becasuse it has nothing pushing it foreward(engine), it mearly trades its foreward momentum for downward momentum, therefore the bomb staying even with the plane the whole way down means the the bomb was going farther than the plane and yet stayed even with it, and thus was outrunning it.  The laws oh physics prohibit this. A+B cannot = D even if there was absolutly NO resistance from wind or anything whatsoever the bomb still could not land directly under the bomber because it would have to go faster horazantally than the object that dropped it, which is impossible because it has no power source giving it more horazontal speed and the object that dropped it does.

Comprendo?
   


In AH A+b=D (and to a large extreme)
The Laws of physics prohibit this.

[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-17-2001).]

[Creamo]

Seems to me that it's a gameplay issue.

 In RL they flew hundreds of bombers and tried to carpet the targets. Online the most bombers I see in formation at one time is 3 ships. Very rarely is there more.

Thats why you can pickle barrel eggs in from 20K. Otherwise it's 40 minutes to target, and 1 bomber misses the whole field, and noone flys them anymore.

You can pick apart every tiny detail, but there has to be some leeway or it all doesn't gell.

Just like you using Combat Trim. Sure isn't real, but it helps folks without the extra HOTAS.

[DA98]

 

even if there was absolutly NO resistance from wind or anything whatsoever the bomb still could not land directly under the bomber

In that case the bomb would fall EXACTLY under the bomber. You are forgeting gravity, the bomb is not trading forward momentum for downward momentum, it's accelerating toward earth at 9.8 m/s2 (?), while traveling forward at the same speed as the bomber minus drag.

[TheWobble]

 

In that case the bomb would fall EXACTLY under the bomber. You are forgeting gravity, the bomb is not trading forward momentum for downward momentum, it's accelerating toward earth at 9.8 m/s2 (?), while traveling forward at the same speed as the bomber minus drag.

The bombs are staying even with the bomber and yet they are also traveiling down at that same time, so they are staying even with it while also moving away from it, making teh distance they have to travel to stay even with the bomber greater, therefore they are somehow going faster then the bomber horazontally, not possible. they gain speed going DOWNWARD yes, but there is no way they should gain any foreward speed at all, yet they would have to to stay even with the bomber because they are not flying straight. (shortest distance between 2 objects= straight line)

   

A: direct route from bomber to ground.

B: the path a bomb takes when it is dropped.

C: the un-accounted gained energy we see in ah.

Line's A and B: are the same length, what they show is that the bomb could not land directly because it would somehow need more FOREWARD speed (C).

Here is the tajectory of a REAL bomb with both air resistance removed and resistance calvulated.
   

not it is a curve, not straight line as in AH, the curve shows (and proves) that the bombs cannot land directly under the bomber. because of the greater speed they would have to attain.

NOW here is the one that REALLY proves my point.
   

Notice how at the top it says the at 25,000 feet the bomber drops the bombs at approxamatly 3 miles out from it.

3 Miles = 15840 Feet

therefore the bombs are being dropped from 25,000 and only travelling foreward 15,840 before they hit the ground.

If they stayed even with they bomber {as they do in AH} the numbers would match, the bomber would have to drop them when he was 4.73 Miles from the target (25000 Feet = 4.73500 Miles)

CONCLUSION: the laws of physics prohibit the bomb from staying directly under the bomber after dropped.
<short bow> thank you
 

[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-18-2001).]

[TheWobble]

Note: the above doesent address the issue of bomb drift and despersion, but it hasnt really been contested, I agree dispersion is a "gameplay" issue for those who will call it that so I wont object, however addressing the non-loss of E issue would do nothing to gameplay other than moving the bombs a little further towards something vaguely realistic and believeable.  

It still bugs me though that people who want soo much for things to be REAL in this game will chalk up the bombs being a total joke to "gameplay"

Also Notice the size of the 2000 pound bomb in the graphic, isnt it safe to assume that a bomb that size would be more than sufficent to destroy a hanger of any size, yet it wont even scratch the Hangers in AH, that being the way it is is what makes it soo necessary for us to be able to put the bombs EXACTLY on a target.  

So basically we have bombs that are so underpowered (un-realistic) they are compensated for by making them super duper accurate (more un-realistic)

2 wrongs making a right...???

[DA98]

   

they gain speed going DOWNWARD yes, but there is no way they should gain any foreward speed at all, yet they would have to to stay even with the bomber because they are not flying straight. (shortest distance between 2 objects= straight line)

They don't need to gain any forward speed to stay even with the bomber... we are only adding a downward vector to the bombs, it doesn't have any impact in forward speed, wich remains the same (minus air resistance of course)

   

Here is the tajectory of a REAL bomb with both air resistance removed and resistance calvulated.
   (Image removed from quote.)  
not it is a curve, not straight line as in AH, the curve shows (and proves) that the bombs cannot land directly under the bomber. because of the greater speed they would have to attain.

This graphic don't prove anything, because it don't show the bomber position in relation with the bomb travelled distance, and in AH, the line IS curved too.

 

Notice how at the top it says the at 25,000 feet the bomber drops the bombs at approxamatly 3 miles out from it.

3 Miles = 15840 Feet

therefore the bombs are being dropped from 25,000 and only travelling foreward 15,840 before they hit the ground.

If they stayed even with they bomber {as they do in AH} the numbers would match, the bomber would have to drop them when he was 4.73 Miles from the target (25000 Feet = 4.73500 Miles)

The distance traveled by the bomb is speed dependant, the fastest the bomber is flying, the farther the bomb will travel. So, again, it doesn't prove anything.

CONCLUSION: The only thing that prevents a bomb from staying directly under the bomber is wind drag.


[This message has been edited by DA98 (edited 02-18-2001).]

[DA98]

 

So basically we have bombs that are so underpowered (un-realistic) they are compensated for by making them super duper accurate (more un-realistic)

The bombs are fine, even a 250lbs can destroy a city or factory building, the problem is with hangar hardness. Yes, a gameplay issue, but a necessary one. The alternative would be to have a greater number of hangars, but more vulnerable (nice alternative IMO   )

[BBGunn]

It has been said that some bombs like the tall boy 12,000lb type broke the speed of sound-they had to be gaining energy as they accelerated toward earth at 32ft per second/second.

[DA98]

 

Here is the tajectory of a REAL bomb with both air resistance removed and resistance calvulated.
 (Image removed from quote.)
 
not it is a curve, not straight line as in AH, the curve shows (and proves) that the bombs cannot land directly under the bomber. because of the greater speed they would have to attain.

ROFLMAO TheWobble, I visited the website where you found that nice graph, and:

A.- The graph is NOT of a REAL bomb.  
B.- If you READ the text, it's PERFECTLY clear that without air drag, the bomb falls EXACTLY under the bomber.  
 http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/math/Ballistic/Ball-1.00.html

Just look at the XSpeed (horizontal speed) column at the first table (with drag removed). It's 100 all the time.
<short bow> Thank you  

[Hans]

Is Wobble correct that bombs should slow down their forward velocity from air drag:  YES!

Would that change the nature of this game:  NO!

Why?  The Norden bombsite would have to be readjusted to aim in a curve, instead of a fixed value (altitude + forward velocity = angle to aim F6 viewpoint).

All it would do to add air drag to the bombs is make the math the game has to do for the bombsight more complicated.  It wouldn't change its accuracy.

And the side to side dispersion isn't big.  Bomb hit patterns do end up in practically straight lines.  The film I can picture in my head is a strike on an orchard by B-26s in Normandy.  The bombs hit in a line.

I have absolutely no expectations that this feature would ever be implemented.  It doesn't affect the gameplay enough to warrant it.

Hans.

[TheWobble]

   

The distance traveled by the bomb is speed dependant, the fastest the bomber is flying, the farther the bomb will travel. So, again, it doesn't prove anything.

That is true, but no matter how fast the bomber is going the bomb could never stay directly under it, yet it would travel farther based on speed, but it would never be able to maintain the speed of the bomber.
the picture is just an example..lets dowuble the altitude and see what happens
make it 50'000 feet, then the bomber will drop from 6 miles out (about)
guess what 50'000 feet is alot less than 6 miles, its a simple ration. the numbers can get bigger YES but they can NEVER be equal, the speed or alt are irrelevent because the ratio will hold true. no matter how fast or high the bomber is the bomb it drops can NEVER land directly below it, it will just be avarible in the ratio.

ALT= A
Distance from drop to impact =B

in the given example I posted A= 25,000
and B= 15840,
so the ratio of A to be is
25,000/15840

lets say we double the alt.
A= 50,000

if A= 50,000 be MUST = 2xA or 31680
50,000/31,680

NEVER can A=B (50,000/50,000 or 1/1)
because that would ignore the ratio,

As far as SPEED influencing the distance the bomb travels YES definatly true,
you drop a bomb from a bomber going 300mph@ 35,000 feet, it goes a certin distance,
then drop a bomb from a bomber going 600mph at the same alt will the bomb go FARTHER? YES, BUT so will the bomber. the bomber and based on the ratio above the despite even an ungodly speed of any bomber the bomb will not and cannot land even with the bomber. because of the A/B ratio above.

IN FACT
The faster the bomber is going the FURTHER behind it the bomb will land because the faster an object is going the more air resistance is acting on it.  which is why a plane needs a bigger angine and more power to go faster(or a car) because the faster it goes the more resistance it is going through.  When the Space Shuttel hits the atmosphere, (air and its resistance) it is going so fast and the air creates so much restance and friction (friction is what resistance is) thast the skin on the front becomes RED hot.

bottom line, no matter the speed or altitude of a bomber its bomb cannot land directly under it.


 

The only thing that prevents a bomb from staying directly under the bomber is wind drag.

Look, its so simple, the bomb is not traveling the same direction as the bomber once it is dropped, it is moving foreward, and downward. therefore it cannot stay even with the bomber because the bomb is taking a longer route than the bomber, the bomber is going straight, the bomb is traveling at a downward angle.  Did you see the drawing? it makes it pretty obvious.

the bomb does not and CANNOT gain foreward speed, it would have to gain FOREWARD speed to stay even with the bomber, because it is taking a longer route to reach the same point.  that doesent even factor in the preasence of air resistance, which would push it back even further.

 

They don't need to gain any forward speed to stay even with the bomber... we are only adding a downward vector to the bombs, it doesn't have any impact in forward speed, wich remains the same (minus air resistance of course)

YES it is traveling DOWNWARD AND FOREWARD, therefore it is taking a longer path than the bomber. the bomber is going FOREWARD the bomb is going DOWNWARD AND FOREWARD, thus making it have to travel a further total distance to stay even with the bomber, now unless it has more FOREWARD speed than the bomber it will..MUST drop behind it.

 




[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-19-2001).]

[TheWobble]

On a side note, AIR RESISTANCE, by itself would make the bomb fall behind the bomber, even if everything else above was wrong (which its not)

so regardless if you believe the fact's above or not just air resistance by itself would make it impossable for the bomb to land directly under the bomber...but then again why would something as trivial as air resistance be important in a flight sim