British B-17

[USRanger]

Not sure if it's the same model of 17 that we have, but if so, it's a neat paint scheme if any are interested.

[Fencer51]

Not even close.

[USRanger]

Too bad.





What model is it then?

[Krusty]

Brits used small numbers of Ds, Es, and some Fs if I recall. Not sure they ever got any C models, but it's possible. Most were used for coastal command work (shore patrols looking for subs, etc)

[Treize69]

They tried using them for daylight bombing and discarded the idea as impractical after only a few (admittedly dismal) efforts. The fact that they were using the early model with no belly, tail or nose guns (and I think no self-sealing tanks either) never seems to have occurred to them as having been a factor when the later models came along. After that they were relegated to Coastal Command, as Krusty said, and I think a few were used as armed transports, mainly for flying high ranking persons over long distances.

[Serenity]

Sorry, but that's an E in the picture. However, I'm sure HTC would permit an E on a G frame as the visible differences are minor (I mean, not counting the obvious lack of chin turret)

[Krusty]

No, I'm pretty sure they will not allow an E on a G.

Probably for the same reason they wouldn't allow a B-25J skin on a B-25C model, or probably wouldn't allow a P-51A skin on a P-51B model.

The plane was pretty different. Performance envelope, payload, defensive capabilities, it's enough (IMO) to set it apart from the late model B-17G we have with the chin turret and the Cheyenne tail gun.

[Serenity]

No, I'm pretty sure they will not allow an E on a G.

Probably for the same reason they wouldn't allow a B-25J skin on a B-25C model, or probably wouldn't allow a P-51A skin on a P-51B model.

The plane was pretty different. Performance envelope, payload, defensive capabilities, it's enough (IMO) to set it apart from the late model B-17G we have with the chin turret and the Cheyenne tail gun.

Actually, mentioning the performance differences... (Sorry, I'm a B-17 nerd)

Now forgive me, I am typing this from memory while sitting in class so there may be an error or two.

The difference from E to G is incredibly minor. The E, F, and G all have a visibly different nose section (How I know that's an E and not an F) which, really only served to affect aerodynamics. The F and G models have different models of engine which are slightly different, IIRC optimizing the aircraft for higher altitudes. Then, you have the Cheyenne turret and obviously the chin turret.

Airspeed differences are incredibly minor. G's max airspeed is about 10mph higher IIRC. (Keeping in mind the F has the highest cruising speed by 10mph).

Payload is identical. The lifting capacity by weight in the B-17 is greater than the bomb-carrying capability due to the dimensions and layout of the bomb bay.

Defensive capabilities are remarkably similar. The tailgun (Stinger configuration IIRC) was no AS effective in the B-17E, but she still had two .50s IIRC. The chin turret is lacking, but the cheek turrets are there.

[Krusty]

You had 1 30cal in the nose, no cheek blisters, reduced visibility in the nose/navgator cabin. This along with the lack of a chin turret reduced drag, but the open waist guns also increased drag. The tail gun had a much narrower cone of fire.

The engines had wider blade props on the F/G models, reshaped cowlings, more fuel tanks in the wings, self-sealing fuel tanks (which were not self-sealing in the E, I think), as well as more powerful engines. I don't recall what they were before that, but they moved to the engines on later models: The cyclone.

The E model topped out over 310mph (numbers vary) while the G model topped out around 280-290. The E model cruised significantly higher than our G model, 220mph-range vs the G's 182mph range.


It's a lot (a lot!) of little variations that make it as different as the A6M2 is from the A6M5.

[Serenity]

You had 1 30cal in the nose, no cheek blisters, reduced visibility in the nose/navgator cabin. This along with the lack of a chin turret reduced drag, but the open waist guns also increased drag. The tail gun had a much narrower cone of fire.

The engines had wider blade props on the F/G models, reshaped cowlings, more fuel tanks in the wings, self-sealing fuel tanks (which were not self-sealing in the E, I think), as well as more powerful engines. I don't recall what they were before that, but they moved to the engines on later models: The cyclone.

The E model topped out over 310mph (numbers vary) while the G model topped out around 280-290. The E model cruised significantly higher than our G model, 220mph-range vs the G's 182mph range.


It's a lot (a lot!) of little variations that make it as different as the A6M2 is from the A6M5.

Where are you getting the 182mph for the G?

What it comes down to, as far as skinning, is that the two are similar enough aircraft to be considered. Self-sealing fuel tanks mean nothing in AH, as they aren't modeled, the reshaping of cowlings is too minor to notice, and the prop size doesn't mean much either.  Performance-wise, they were similar enough IMHO to be skinned together.

I would still love to see an E/F modeled, but uh... thats another thread for another board.

[Guppy35]

Seems like I recall someone skinning an RAF G already and it was a G model. I'd be of the opinion that skinning an E on a G would be a mistake.  Too much of a difference.

Down the line should they model an earlier 17 I'd hope it was an F and that the E skins could go on that.

Krusty, the RAF 17s that they got first were C models.  They did not get D models.  The D was updated based on RAF experience with the C.

[Krusty]

Krusty, the RAF 17s that they got first were C models.  They did not get D models.  The D was updated based on RAF experience with the C.

That must be what I was thinking of. I recall the D being improved for the RAF, but I guess it was "because" of the RAF, not "for."

Where are you getting the 182mph for the G?

Tons of places. In fact, some are even lower. These bombers did not fly at 300mph+ like they do in AH with 10,000 pounds of fuel missing from the wings and engines firewalled with no fear of them melting off and the props separating, as you had in real life. It makes bombers in this game absurdly (and ahistorically) fast.

[Serenity]

That must be what I was thinking of. I recall the D being improved for the RAF, but I guess it was "because" of the RAF, not "for."

Tons of places. In fact, some are even lower. These bombers did not fly at 300mph+ like they do in AH with 10,000 pounds of fuel missing from the wings and engines firewalled with no fear of them melting off and the props separating, as you had in real life. It makes bombers in this game absurdly (and ahistorically) fast.

IIRC, my numbers are in the low 200s. (210, IIRC)

[FTJR]

Apart from the British tail flash, is there any indication that its in Brit service. If you look behind the wing, to me it looks like the tip of a star. Also it has its US serial number still painted on and the Blue on the tail, all non standard for British service.

I stand to be corrected.

[Guppy35]

Apart from the British tail flash, is there any indication that its in Brit service. If you look behind the wing, to me it looks like the tip of a star. Also it has its US serial number still painted on and the Blue on the tail, all non standard for British service.

I stand to be corrected.

Nope, you are correct.  A number of B17Es meant for the RAF were instead re-directed to the USAAF.  A good example of this is the B17E still laying broken in "Black Cat Pass" in New Guiniea.  It carried a similar paint scheme.

Nice catch on that one FTJR