Author Topic: B-29 and current runways  (Read 9042 times)

Offline Volron

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5805
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2010, 05:41:58 PM »
Makes you wonder what the CLASSIFIED data would read. hehe
Quote from: hitech
Wow I find it hard to believe it has been almost 38 days since our last path. We should have release another 38 versions by now  :bhead
HiTech
Quote from: Pyro
Quote from: Jolly
What on Earth makes you think that i said that sir?!
My guess would be scotch.

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9504
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2010, 09:39:40 PM »
I'm wondering how this will work for the SEA and the AvA. 

Considering we'll probably put up a scenario shortly with the B-29 (as soon as it's released), I'm thinking most of the terrains won't be B-29 friendly.

That said, I think our trusty AvA map making guru's can figure it out.  Have an airfield with a 100ft runway on a 5000ft hill.  Should be enough distance to get the ole cigar airborne...


Possibly we could hang a B-29 under the new Betty bomber and drop it like a Baka?

- oldman

Offline 800nate

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2010, 07:35:32 AM »
  I could be wrong on this, but doesn't a B29 need a much longer runway to take off and land then the game currently has?   I think I read this a long time ago.  I may be wrong.

  What i remember is that a B29 has pretty high stall speed, so getting them up and down requires a longer runway.  I know that many runways in the Far-East were specifically designed to accommodate B29's.  Would our current runways need a face lift to allow B29's?  If so, maybe it would be a nice touch if only "Major" bases were big enough?

  I'm just curious....flaps help


Helm ...out

Offline Raptor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7577
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2010, 10:38:44 AM »
The diagonal 7400ft runway in game is longer than a runway used by B29s at Siapan by about 140ft.

Offline Tupac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5056
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2010, 10:51:52 AM »
If you use flaps on takeoff it shouldn't be a problem.
"It was once believed that an infinite number of monkeys, typing on an infinite number of keyboards, would eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. However, with the advent of Internet messageboards we now know this is not the case."

Offline Wolfala

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4875
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2010, 01:13:22 PM »
If you use flaps on takeoff it shouldn't be a problem.

If you think the 29 will out climb a pregnant yak while loaded at anything above sea level, you are in for a very rude surprise. I'll be watching when you try to clear the trees at a 5000 ft field.



the best cure for "wife ack" is to deploy chaff:    $...$$....$....$$$.....$ .....$$$.....$ ....$$

Offline R 105

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2010, 01:53:16 PM »
Maybe it will be restricted to just a few bases like the ME163 is.

Offline FLOTSOM

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2822
      • http://www.myspace.com/prfctstrngr
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2010, 03:02:44 PM »
here is a dumb question only vaguely on point, why is the 163 field limited? to the best of my knowledge it does not need a longer or better air field from which to launch from, so why restrict it to just one base?

lets start with a little honesty, personally i didn't vote for the B-29 and i personally think it is a ridiculous and absurd decision to even consider putting it in the game while there are so many other glaringly gaping holes in the plane/vehicle line up. i feel that the B-29 shall prove itself to be an albatross strung around the necks of those who play in the LWA's. just one example of this will be that someone will up the bird with full fuel and bombs, climb to the heavens, go to the enemy capital that is suffering from the highest ENY and because of our laser guided smart bombs will with the minimum amount of ord needed, drop first the FH for the 163 and then put down DAR. they will then sit on station and maintain this DAR black out for what, if done properly, could be hours. now doesn't that just sound like soooooooo much fun? people get all touchy and mad about the DAR failing to work properly in some areas cause they cant see the enemy for a few minutes, imagine how much you'll enjoy flying completely blind for half the day. although maybe I'm wrong about that, half the people in the MA's seem to go out of their way to avoid a fight as it is, so flying against a blind enemy will be heaven for them. endless hours of porking undefended bases......they must be wetting their pants with anticipation!

now if you think they wont do something this dweebish, think about the disappearing CV groups that someone spends hours sailing to the farthest corners of the earth.

now back to my point, if it is restricted based solely on the unique type of aircraft it is then i say yes the B-29 should get the same treatment and be restricted to the same locations as the 163. if it is because the 163 has some special needs that must be accommodated then i say that every field prepared for the B-29's unique needs should also be modified to accommodate the 163. finally if the B-29 is given full run of the shop as it were, i.e. launchable from every base, then the 163 should have its hands untied and be given the same lack of restrictions.

my point is this, the 163 and 262 are going to be the best defence against the B-29, but they will also be the greatest escorts for the B-29. they should be on station and launchable from anywhere the B-29 is allowed to, or the B-29 should suffer under the same restrictions as the 163.

this will not put and end to all the potential dweebery i forsee, but at least if the 163 threat cant be put down and kept down by one formation all at once then maybe the dweebery wont be as fun and easy for just one or two people to pull off.

just my thoughts on the issue.
FLOTSOM

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups!
Quote from Skuzzy
"The game is designed to encourage combat, not hide from it."
http://www.myspace.com/prfctstrngr

Offline SWkiljoy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2010, 11:33:49 AM »
I honestly don't know if they are going to limit it to just one field or not.  At the very least, you should ONLY be able to take off from a LARGE Airfield.  If they limit it to one field, it's likely going to be the 163 base.  At which point we will probably see just one unique airfield then have all the standard airfields we have now.  Otherwise, the Large Fields are gonna need to be revamped with a longer runway.  To answer your question, the current airfields cannot support the B-29.  They are to short.
Coming from a true bomber dweeb   :aok
Proud member and Flight Leader of the 125th Spartan Warriors
<<S>> SWkiljoy

Offline Mister Fork

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7295
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2010, 06:05:24 PM »

Possibly we could hang a B-29 under the new Betty bomber and drop it like a Baka?

- oldman
How about JATO for the 29's?
"Games are meant to be fun and fair but fighting a war is neither." - HiTech

Offline M0nkey_Man

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2254
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2010, 07:35:24 PM »
or just throw it off the cliff.
best idea ive seen on here  :aok :banana: ;)
FlyKommando.com


"Tip of the dull butter knife"
delta07

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2010, 02:16:04 AM »
Note the cruising speed. How far would it go on the typical AH's MAX speed?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline cooldued

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2010, 01:53:38 AM »
That's a fine question right there!!!   :salute

My assumption is that, as with other heavy bombers, it can only launch NE/NW/SE/SW.....  But what will be the defining factor is the pilot's skill itself.  When I was new I couldn't get B24's off the ground, and as such, with the runway distance, I have to imagine it's going to take some know-how to get the B29 up. 

if hes right i think befor you try to fly it and wast perks, practice offline and get off the ground and land 4 or 5 times  :aok

[edit] If you'd like I can post a video, showing how to take off and land. I've got lots of time, i don't think ill find a way to make money and get on-line till my first job. plenty of time for video editing :D
« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 02:05:33 AM by cooldued »
Planes I'm good in the Bf-109 G14, the B-25C, and the B-17G not many but its nice for me to know :P

Offline DERK13

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 590
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2010, 09:03:11 AM »
yea a B29 with 25% or 50% fully loaded with some flaps down should not be a problem for those runways. It aint hard to get a bomber up just gotta know how to fly it when you are up. The landing that should be the easiest part.

RedTail
 

Offline Volron

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5805
Re: B-29 and current runways
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2010, 03:16:06 PM »
Coming from a true bomber dweeb   :aok
What can I say? I just love to fly bombers. :salute :x


Landing won't be a problem.  Remember that you can always do stuff to slow your bomber down that would normally be bad in actuality.  IE: Hard rudder action, hard banking L and R, all while under 500 ft and throttle to minimal.  Take off will be a pain, especially if you don't check the ends of the runways. :lol  My advice, F3/F5 from tower and check prior to lifting. :aok  With 100% fuel though, you will have a very hard time getting off the ground.  50/25% fuel, yes.  I can see it possible to take off from our current field setups.
Quote from: hitech
Wow I find it hard to believe it has been almost 38 days since our last path. We should have release another 38 versions by now  :bhead
HiTech
Quote from: Pyro
Quote from: Jolly
What on Earth makes you think that i said that sir?!
My guess would be scotch.