Author Topic: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission  (Read 7863 times)

Offline Jayhawk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2010, 10:24:00 PM »
the other way to look at it is .. more means you dont have to be as accurate too

Well you still have to hit it.
LOOK EVERYBODY!  I GOT MY NAME IN LIGHTS!

Folks, play nice.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2010, 10:35:02 PM »

But then, I constantly saw players upping their Lancs again and again for a target that didn't need that much bombs, but was well defended by fighters. When someone suggested taking a B-17 for its better survival characteristics, the answer was almost always: "But the Lanc carries more bombs!". Bombs that either never got to the target are or simply made a lot of craters, not damage.



But then, the B-29 carries an equivalent bomb load to the Lanc AND is more survivable. She's 100mph faster at altitude and FAR more heavily-armed. Imagine the whines if hitech chooses to model the 20mm and 2x.50cal package in the tail position....

The B-29 would HAVE to be well-perked, or else it's almost guaranteed you wouldn't see another heavy bomber in the LWAs.

On the other hand, B-29s could make for some EPIC battles over the cities and HQ....
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2010, 11:51:11 PM »
Thats what I am hoping for.  Finally a reason to head to HQ Cities
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline columbus

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2010, 12:34:15 AM »




say bye bye to your bases!
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 12:36:49 AM by columbus »

Offline columbus

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2010, 12:44:47 AM »
i would rather have the soviet TU-4!!! screw the B-29!

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2010, 12:50:55 AM »
Really...





Tu-4...nice try. I guess you think you're funny.
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline Imowface

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1124
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #51 on: November 05, 2010, 01:05:18 AM »
lol we may get the B-29 but in my eyes I will be flying a Tu-4, which you americans so kindly "gave" us the examples to copy  :devil
Ла-5 Пилот снова
NASA spent 12 million dollars to develop a pen that could work in space, Russia went to space with pencils...

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2010, 05:51:06 AM »
On the other hand, B-29s could make for some EPIC battles over the cities and HQ....

thats about the only place I'd expect to see 29s engaged, as the 163 is the only plane with a realistic hope of shooting one down.
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline PanosGR

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 534
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2010, 06:43:48 AM »
There are more a few players that do that stuff. Getting a Lanc to >25k isn't really faster. My own B-17 runs did frequently last 90-150 minutes. I often did fly bomber missions while doing household chores during daytime. No problem spending a hour climbing, I will take a shower, check computer, wash the dishes, check it again, and so on.

And also you can of course take less fuel in the 29. 50% should still give quite some flying time, while significantly reducing time to climb.


lol and will come and shoot your B29 down while you are take a ahower or wash your dishes.

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2010, 08:44:01 AM »
3x120 = 360 X 3 500lbs bombs in a formation should clear out vh's and any gv's  in a single pass.

so thats 1080 500lbs bombs in a group of 3 bombers. that should take just about any field out. with ease


wtf kind of math is this?

40 500's per b29 = 120 500's per formation = 360 500's for 3 formations

as others have pointed out, it's complete overkill anyway, if the people know how to bomb..  for those who don't, it will just be more wasted bombs (much like the lanc carpetbombers who can't hit a damn thing)
kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline columbus

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #55 on: November 05, 2010, 09:00:14 AM »
and now they will have 50% more to miss with, or hit with

Offline columbus

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #56 on: November 05, 2010, 09:03:02 AM »
wtf kind of math is this?

40 500's per b29 = 120 500's per formation = 360 500's for 3 formations

as others have pointed out, it's complete overkill anyway, if the people know how to bomb..  for those who don't, it will just be more wasted bombs (much like the lanc carpetbombers who can't hit a damn thing)

B-29 loadouts from the manual (AN 01-20EJ-1):

80x 100lb
56x 300lb
40x 500lb
12x 1,000lb
12x 1,600lb
8x 2,000lb
4x 4,000lb

based on that a formation will have 120 X 500lb bombs, a group of 3 formations will have 1080 X 500lbs of bombs ? i dont know about you but your not gonna miss much with 1080 bombs

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #57 on: November 05, 2010, 09:11:50 AM »
During the summer of 1944, 47 B-29s raided the Yawata steel works from bases in China; only one plane actually hit the target area, and with only one of its bombs. This single 500 lb general purpose bomb (which hit a powerhouse located 3,700 ft from the far more important coke houses that constituted the raid’s aiming point) represented one quarter of one per cent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission.

Offline DaddieDrax

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #58 on: November 05, 2010, 09:18:49 AM »
I think they should force it to have 100% fuel every time it takes off (like every heavy and medium bomber should) in-game to prevent it from proverbially flying around on fumes (like a bat outta hell, unlike it ever did in combat).

This is stupid.

PERHAPS they should also make it that once you get blown out of the sky you cant fly again, instead of being able to fly again with new life (like an immortal, unlike it ever happened in combat)

Offline columbus

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #59 on: November 05, 2010, 09:20:27 AM »
During the summer of 1944, 47 B-29s raided the Yawata steel works from bases in China; only one plane actually hit the target area, and with only one of its bombs. This single 500 lb general purpose bomb (which hit a powerhouse located 3,700 ft from the far more important coke houses that constituted the raid’s aiming point) represented one quarter of one per cent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission.

i beleive that but thats in RL there are wind and other varibles not present. there are plenty of people on each side that have the bombing down to able to hit things with ease. and now they have a 50% better chance of hitting them.