New Patch is out

[Guppy35]

Yes, but I think this is incident on the extreme side of things. If you would base the durability on that numbers alone, hardly any Superfortress would be shot down in combat in Aces High. It makes even wonder how the japanese fighters managed to shot down any B-29 at all.

You can find similar accounts for many other planes, which managed to survive a way greater number of hits then average for their type. The other end of the spectrum was the infamous lucky bullet.

Are you suggesting that one incident is not enough to change the entire damage model Lusche?  Stats man! We need stats!

[Lusche]

I pose you this question though, do you feel that the B-29 needs to be beefed up even more, going on both our results?

I don't have sufficient knowledge about construction details and combat report evaluations to form a substantial opinion. I would have expected the 29 to be somewhat stronger than it is know, but that's just kinda layman thinking

[Lusche]

Are you suggesting that one incident is not enough to change the entire damage model Lusche?  Stats man! We need stats!

  Yes we do need them

[bangsbox]

Yes, but I think this is incident on the extreme side of things. If you would base the durability on that numbers alone, hardly any Superfortress would be shot down in combat in Aces High. It makes even wonder how the japanese fighters managed to shot down any B-29 at all.

You can find similar accounts for many other planes, which managed to survive a way greater number of hits then average for their type. The other end of the spectrum was the infamous lucky bullet.

also lusche i feel like when we think of battle damage and shot down bombers we dont take into account just 1 .303 or 7.92mm round could kill both pilots..from a side shot of course and a very lucky one. so i think many jap b29 kills were just a quick burst into the cockpit

[Kazaa]

Another thing, I don't know how firing directly at the engine can blow the whole wing off from the root.

[Oldman731]

I don't have sufficient knowledge about construction details and combat report evaluations to form a substantial opinion. I would have expected the 29 to be somewhat stronger than it is know, but that's just kinda layman thinking

I don't think anyone does, mainly because there is comparatively little information of this sort available for B-29s.

In the ETO there were lots and lots of B17s and B24s over a span of years.  In the PAC there were just a few hundred B29s for less than one year.

In the ETO bomber crews bailed out over land, generally, and those who survived could tell tales.  In the PAC B29 crews generally went down in the vast expanse of the Pacific and were lost.

I know that I was very surprised when I read about how the MiGs clobbered the B-29s in Korea.  Somehow I had just expected that the B-29 would be at least as tough as the B-17, and that no second generation Bolshevik jet fighter was going to do much harm zinging by at those speeds.

It just might be that HTC has correctly modeled the B29, and we were expecting something else based on information that didn't apply to B29s.

- oldman

[Guppy35]

Another thing, I don't know how firing directly at the engine can blow the whole wing off from the root.

For many of us, it's just an indication of how bad our aim is.

[Lusche]

Another thing, I don't know how firing directly at the engine can blow the whole wing off from the root.

I think the current damage model is not granular enough
If I'm not mistaken, the wing in AH is basically made out of two large components, housing sub components like fuel tanks and some attached ones like ailerons and flaps. So if your bullets land in an area on the edge, but still within the bounds of the "inner wing", that whole inner wing comes off (and of course anything attached to it)

[OOZ662]

Remember, too, that the wing flying off in AH does not represent a wing flying off in real life. Like the situation with flaps flying off but actually being stuck down, the wing breaking off simply means there was a failure of some sort that would render the wing unflyable, be it actually shearing the wing off or chewing enough of the skin off to make it useless.

[MajWoody]

I know that I was very surprised when I read about how the MiGs clobbered the B-29s in Korea.  

- oldman

Those migs were packing 30 mils.

[Fencer51]

2 23mms and 1 37mm.

[Crash Orange]

HTC set the "fire" parameters to what they thought was accurate according to whatever standard they used, hopefully on historical data.  The fact is the B29 was known to flame up due to a number of issues.     

IIRC the historical problems weren't due to battle damage, it was a problem of mechanical reliability of the engine. AH doesn't model those. If it did, you would see KI-84s and N1Ks about once a year in the MA. What they're saying they fixed in the B-29 was the damage model, which I would assume they felt was not historically correct.

[Ack-Ack]

Are you suggesting that one incident is not enough to change the entire damage model Lusche?  Stats man! We need stats!

I've only flown the B-29 offline so I really don't know how well it absorbs damage first hand in game but from what I've read from people's various posts, it really seems like people over estimated the B-29's ability to take damage.  Honestly, there is really nothing to in the historical record that the B-29 was some type of damage sponge able to soak up whatever was shot at it.

I'm reading the memoirs of a B-29 pilot and his impression of the B-29 was that it was a tough plane but it certainly wasn't invincible and very susceptible to flak, especially when the Japanese started to use rolling flak barrages during the daylight raids.  Coming in as low as 5,000ft the flaks tore up the B-29s in the daylight raids.  

The author also noted how jealous he was of a flight school friend that flew B-24s because of the Pratt & Whitney engines.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

IIRC the historical problems weren't due to battle damage, it was a problem of mechanical reliability of the engine.

The Wright engine was also susceptible to fire after receiving damage.  One of the issues was depending on the damage (oil leak, etc.) the engines had a tendency to swallow the valves.  The stem of the exhaust valves would burn through, the valve head would pop off in the combustion chamber and if it broke a hole in the top of the piston, it would force fuel into the crankcase where it would ignite immediately and once on fire there was no way to put it out.  The fire would rage against the wing spar and in about 30 or 40 seconds the wing would fold.  A lot of B-29s were lost due to flak because of the engines catching fire and as you can see, very little time for the crew to bail out if they didn't shut off and feather the engine immediately after taking damage.

ack-ack

[Shuffler]

Most everyone knows I am not a fan of the B-29.

I do not think HT makes any changes based on complaints from the user base. They do take into consideration playability issues. The small changes made for playability should not hurt anything and can only be considered a plus for everyone.

HT will make changes supplied by a user if it is based on good knowledgeable information and came from historical charts or tests.

IMHO of course, but that is what i believe. I think they do an outstanding job of it too.