Author Topic: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission  (Read 8143 times)

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #75 on: November 05, 2010, 12:34:00 PM »
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.

TA 152 should be able to intercept a B-29 at altitude but it will take some time and maneuvering to get into an ideal intercept position.  There are a couple of other planes that if they take the time and have the patience, should be able to intercept the B-29 at altitude.  The best time to intercept a B-29 is when it is climbing to altitude, it's a sitting duck and if we get the B-29B instead of the A model, much easier to intercept as you have to worry about a single defensive gun in the tail.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #76 on: November 05, 2010, 12:49:47 PM »
The best time to intercept a B-29 is when it is climbing to altitude

thats true of all buffs but how often are the more experienced buffers (ie those who could afford to fly the 29 regularly) caught out like this? not often I'll bet. it will also be less of a sitting duck than the rest of the buffs - same guns as the B-17 with an extra 20mm in the tail and much better climbrate ...
71 (Eagle) Squadron

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

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #77 on: November 05, 2010, 12:51:47 PM »
Other than the destructive capabilities of the B-29, how is it much different than say a 262?  Its really all about tactics.
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #78 on: November 05, 2010, 01:00:05 PM »
too much to answer 1 at a time, so let me put it this way - the IJAAF didnt have alot of luck intercepting B29s in WWII.

Because the IJAAF nor the IJN really had any inceptors in which to properly challenge the B-29 at high altitudes, however, the same can't be said of the other planes the B-29 would face in game that could intercept a B-29.  You really can't use the difficulty of the Japanese to intercept the B-29 and apply it as a blanket statement on how difficult it would be to intercept the B-29 in game.

ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #79 on: November 05, 2010, 01:01:43 PM »
also bear in mind that any attack from behind the 3-9 line will face 2x .50 and a 20mm so if you can set it up, you'll have just one decent pass at a formation from in front of the 3-9 line. I dont know how tough they will be compared to B17s but they dont look very fragile to me ...

Bear in mind, defensive firepower and survivability will be wholly dependent on which B-29 we would get if it won the vote.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #80 on: November 05, 2010, 01:26:39 PM »
I'm assuming it will be the 29A. I mentioned the IJAAF not as concrete evidence (if thats what you mean by blanket) but just to put it into context. certainly the 29 wont be used in snapshots/scenarios etc unless pretty strict alt/speed/fuel constraints are used to make combat possible.

the 262 is a good analog - both are a generation ahead of everything else in the planeset and used sensibly neither are really beatable.
71 (Eagle) Squadron

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

Offline Jayhawk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #81 on: November 05, 2010, 01:30:43 PM »
the 262 is a good analog - both are a generation ahead of everything else in the planeset and used sensibly neither are really beatable.

Quite the contrary, the 262 is quite an easy kill if the person doesn't know how to fly it (point being you're assuming all the people who fly the 29 will fly it correctly).  Also, the 262 hasn't completely ruined or changed the game, why will the B-29?
LOOK EVERYBODY!  I GOT MY NAME IN LIGHTS!

Folks, play nice.

Offline LLogann

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
      • Candidz.com
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #82 on: November 05, 2010, 01:52:51 PM »
With the unlocking of the B29 we will see something new to bomber perks...................

The OPC.......................... ..........




Ordnance Perk Cost
See Rule #4
Now I only pay because of my friends.

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #83 on: November 05, 2010, 02:05:46 PM »
Quite the contrary, the 262 is quite an easy kill if the person doesn't know how to fly it

thats not a contradiction, I said "used sensibly."

point being you're assuming all the people who fly the 29 will fly it correctly

no I'm not, you inferred that. I implied that most who fly it regularly will use it sensibly. like regular 262 pilots do. like I expect the 91st BG to (Ive lost enough planes and parts to your guns to know you guys wont be upping them from capped fields or making bomb runs at 10k ;))

Also, the 262 hasn't completely ruined or changed the game, why will the B-29?

I didnt say it has, and I dont think it will.

I actually dont think it will have much impact on gameplay - the buffs we already have are capable enough to carry out the tactical stuff ingame, the strategic side of the game (where the 29 should have most impact) is almost nonexistant. I do see less buff interception happening as they will be too high and fast for most people to bother with, although that should be balanced by more people buffing to earn perks for 29s, which will involve alot more milk running. and quite a few dead Stukas :D
71 (Eagle) Squadron

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

Offline Jayhawk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #84 on: November 05, 2010, 02:34:24 PM »
I probably kind of pushed all of your arguments in together with some other anti-B-29 folks.  So I may not have read your posts as carefully as I should.  Sorry bout that.  :uhoh

the strategic side of the game (where the 29 should have most impact) is almost nonexistant.

I couldn't agree more.
LOOK EVERYBODY!  I GOT MY NAME IN LIGHTS!

Folks, play nice.

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #85 on: November 05, 2010, 03:26:45 PM »
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

alright, gotcha.. 3 x 120 = 1080    :aok

 :( :rolleyes: :uhoh :confused: :huh :headscratch:
kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline Jayhawk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #86 on: November 05, 2010, 03:56:10 PM »
alright, gotcha.. 3 x 120 = 1080    :aok

 :( :rolleyes: :uhoh :confused: :huh :headscratch:

lol, I had been completely ignoring his numbers. 

It's just like in 1492 when 27 ships sailed the ocean blue.
LOOK EVERYBODY!  I GOT MY NAME IN LIGHTS!

Folks, play nice.

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #87 on: November 05, 2010, 04:06:40 PM »
Yes, but you still have the automated gun turrets.

:huh

Electric motors make them shoot better?



wrongway
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23939
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #88 on: November 05, 2010, 05:04:28 PM »
:huh

Electric motors make them shoot better?



wrongway

No, but the central fire control computer was supposed to do so.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline columbus

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
Re: B-29A - Loading and Performance for a typical mission
« Reply #89 on: November 05, 2010, 05:12:40 PM »
lol, I had been completely ignoring his numbers. 

It's just like in 1492 when 27 ships sailed the ocean blue.

he missed the 3 formations total .