B-29 Superfortress and/or the Messerschmitt Me 410

[Karnak]

No, we whine about the b-29 because it would throw the game outta whack. The plane balance would be gone. Plus, add it without a nuke, or cap it's ordy load... well, then there'll be more requests here about how "W3 w4n7 73h n00k!" and "If you look at my current charts, it's ordinance level simply is off! We need more b0mbs!"
b-29 = flying metal death trap for AHII and HTC imo...

I doubt it would make things out of whack.  It would be a hugely expensive aircraft.  Yes, you would see a lot of them for a bit due to the high amount of unspent bomber perk points out there, but at something like 600 points for a formation that would end pretty fast.

[chris3]

I doubt it would make things out of whack.  It would be a hugely expensive aircraft.  Yes, you would see a lot of them for a bit due to the high amount of unspent bomber perk points out there, but at something like 600 points for a formation that would end pretty fast.

moin

i completly agree with you, after a few weeks it becomes a plane like every other. it becomes only a biger lancaster with more guns nothing more but it will cost somethink.

cu chris3

[Treize69]

As much as I don't want to see a B-29 in the game, I would atill fly it if we did get it, if for no other reason than I need something to spend bomber perks on once in a while. 234 is all kinds of useless IMO.

[Pongo]

So in summary, don't add the B29 because "they" want it. And you hate "them". Or something to that effect. To say it will wreck the game is silly. The perk system can handle 262s. It can handle B29s without a hitch.

[DREDIOCK]

Why? so we can have dive bomber B-29's to go with the dive bomber B-17's and Lancasters?

No thanks.

[Puck]

Why? so we can have dive bomber B-29's to go with the dive bomber B-17's and Lancasters?

No thanks.

You're SO cynical.  You think the zip codes will dive bomb the B-29?  Perish the thought.  Just a gentle descent...call it 45 degrees.

[splitatom]

i think the only people that do that are people that dont know how to get the bombsight to work or when i do it somewhat when i am takeing down a strat

[chris3]

So in summary, don't add the B29 because "they" want it. And you hate "them". Or something to that effect. To say it will wreck the game is silly. The perk system can handle 262s. It can handle B29s without a hitch.

total agree. !!!

mmh i think we will not see divbombing b29.....
because....the perks

because....it cant dive. lol did you ever try to divebomb in b25??? its really bad hehe. and the b 29 would be a much more worser divebomber. maybe im wrong but i always dive in ju88.

cant understand the afreidness about this bird....
i want to see it in air so i can hunt it with my ta152.

i cant understnad HTC that he didnt introduce it although it is called for years by hundreds of people.

cu chris3

[Karnak]

i cant understnad HTC that he didnt introduce it although it is called for years by hundreds of people.

cu chris3

B-29 would take much more development time than any aircraft in AH.  The B-17, B-24 and Lancaster pale in comparison.  That is the main reason it isn't here.

Off hand I can only think of a couple of other aircraft that would take as much time to add.

[chris3]

B-29 would take much more development time than any aircraft in AH.  The B-17, B-24 and Lancaster pale in comparison.  That is the main reason it isn't here.

Off hand I can only think of a couple of other aircraft that would take as much time to add.

moin

why would the b-29 take much more development? were is the diverence to other plans? only the size cant be the problem, or?!
maybe the plan development will rise a bit because of the CT dies. we will see what is coming next
.cu

[LLogann]

Since this has already been bumped I shall go on..........


Wont take any time to develop, as the bomber template already exists....... It is a simple fact of punching in different values to make the b17 a b29.... Keep in mind I am talking about the backend code.  Building the bird (model) itself and skinning it would be the more labor intensive aspects of it.

They dont build the model and then put it in the AH "wind tunnel" to test it's accuracy.  They do that with mathematics, so nothing to develop really, just a little trial and error with respective values for such things TTW or climbrate..... so on and so forth.

Unless of course you know something else?

B-29 would take much more development time than any aircraft in AH.  The B-17, B-24 and Lancaster pale in comparison.  That is the main reason it isn't here.

Off hand I can only think of a couple of other aircraft that would take as much time to add.

[Rich46yo]

Why? so we can have dive bomber B-29's to go with the dive bomber B-17's and Lancasters?

No thanks.

Why would you stuka 200 perk B-29s when you can endlessly stuka Lancs for nothing?

The bomber crowd deserves a bone tosssed in the form of a perked bomber. I'd rather see A-26s, 111s, and TU-2s, come first but I hope the 29 eventually makes its way into the game.

[moot]

By the time anyone gets done arguing the B29, we could all just say yes to the 410 and have something to show for all the arguing.

[Odisseo]

410 was real unstable due to how close the two props were, it would be a pretty easy plane to shoot down and wouldn't be used much (IMO) We allready have a good town strafer in the 110. I DO think the 410 should be added someday, just not in the near future

Where have you read it was unstable?
As far I know it was well more manouvrable than a 110, much faster and above all, it was a flying guns/cannons.
We had that plane in WarBird and it was just great.

Saluti!

[ODBAL]

I would like to see the B-29, It seemed to play a fairly important part in the air war during WW2.  Being available to all sides I don't think it would throw the balance of the game off, no more so than having the 262 does.  Make it a perkie bomber, allow formations (even if only a formation of 2) and put it in the game.  I am not a bomber, and hate flying against them, but it deserves a place in this game in my opinion.