B-29 and current runways

[Helm]

  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....


Helm ...out

[LLogann]

That's a fine question right there!!!   

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. 

[Volron]

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.

[Greebo]

The longer diagonal runways in MA airfields are about 7,400 ft long. The B-29 needed 8,000 ft to get off at sea level when fully loaded. A higher alt field would need a longer take off run. So HTC will either have to create a runway extension for at least a few fields in each terrain or limit the maximum fuel loads it can carry in the MA. The latter shouldn't be too much of a problem, I can't see why anyone would need more than 50% fuel in a B-29 for the MA.

[MachFly]

I don't see anyone using more than 25% fuel so as Greebo said it should not be a problem, if someone really wants to take 100% fuel and full ord I bet they can find another 600ft of grass or just throw it off the cliff.

[Volron]

I honestly doubt they will limit the amount of fuel it will be able to carry.  So we'll be seeing new large airfields I think.  I wonder if they will widen the bomber hangers though.  The Lancaster doesn't have a lot of room to play with when you spawn from the hanger.  Remember, some people will make a mistake when creating a mission and not set formations.  There have also been more than a few times where a runway spawn was set for take off, but we ended up spawning inside a hanger.

[Lusche]

. The latter shouldn't be too much of a problem, I can't see why anyone would need more than 50% fuel in a B-29 for the MA.

I would. I occasionally did long runs with 100% fuel in B-17's and used all of that fuel. With one bomb loadout posted here at 40x500 lbs bombs, I think I could make good use of more than 50% fuel in a B-29 too

Quick & rough computation: The chart AKAK posted said mission time for high speed mission 7.78hours with a fuel load of ~ 85%.
At MA fuel burn 2.0 and having 50% fuel only that would result in a flying time of ~2.3 hours. Wouldn't be enough for me.

[Dichotomy]

'just throw it off the cliff.'

Now here's an excellent idea

[MachFly]

'just throw it off the cliff.'

Now here's an excellent idea

 

[Mister Fork]

'just throw it off the cliff.'

Now here's an excellent idea

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...

[BigKev03]

Good question!  I know that when I fly bomber missions I like to take off from a base a good ways away and take a round about route to get to my cruising alt then make to the target.  I do it out of my tendency to want to be at alt and speed before I cross into enemy territory.  Now if the B-29 takes longer runways to lift and if not adjusted for and I have to take smaller fuel loads then it may affect the way I make bomber runs.  I know that 100% load would cover the map and then some but at times I have used 75% load out in lancs getting to alt, making my run, and returning.  I await the answer from HTC.  But I think in realism in the game (as close as we can get it) the longer runways would be needed.


BigKev

[Dichotomy]

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...

I wonder who will be the volunteer to test pilot that hilarity?

[Greebo]

Scenarios shouldn't be a problem as the terrain designer can just tack an extra runway object onto the end of an existing airfield; instant 10,560ft runway.

That may be what happens in the MA too. There's a fundamental problem to making the existing airfields bigger as they can only be one mile square with the existing terrain setup. Adding an extra runway onto the end of an existing airfield only involves levelling that square, placing the object and making sure there are no hills in the way. Nevertheless I don't think HTC would want to redo every airfield on every MA terrain that way. So more likely they would just redo a few and restrict the B-29 to those fields. Maybe just the three uncapturable fields.

[Volron]

That would be fine with me Greebo.  There are no uncapturable fields in the LW arena's though.  In fact, I've seen the Nit 163 base get captured on another map.  I forgot the map's name but it has that large up-side-down triangle lake in the middle of the map (this map is currently in use in the Mid-War Arena. I just checked).  It was being used in one of the LW arena's a couple of weeks ago and that's when I saw the Nit 163 base was captured by the Rooks.

[CAP1]

akak found and posted this in another forum.......hope you don't mind me putting this here akak.......