unperk the b29 now!!!

[THRASH99]

look at this crap! short burst from a p51 and im down!? 

i was upping my b29 on just a little lol'run. (Was gonna try to divebomb with it, funny stuff).


then this pony comes in. short little burst on me. and im towered.


b29 doesnt deserved to be perked if crap like this is gonna keep happening! 
http://www.mediafire.com/?s4rsbiwkmztoirg

/rage.

As I saw when I looked at the film, I saw some 50 cal rounds go into your cockpit, which probably killed your pilot ending in the very quick tower.

[Tyrannis]

man this is just crazy 


lost my first ever buff to flak just a few minutes ago. and in a b29! ive never been killed by flak like that before 

first burst poked holes in my center fuel. then the burst after that ignited it!.


my luck seems to be down horribly 

[mthrockmor]

Should the B-29 be perked about the same as the Ar-234 or the Mossy? I don't fly bombers but the B-29 was as easy to shoot down as a Ju-88. Two passes with a Dora and both burning like a Roman candle. I almost felt bad knowing it took some guy a month or more to build that many perks.

I say perk them, but make them about as common as the 234 or Mossy, which is still pretty rare. I fly a fair amount and only see those two about once a week.

Boo

[StokesAk]

Maybe if you weren't breathing pure oxygen that high, you wouldn't need 100% gas to get where you are going. Take 25% and go in at 15k, it wont lite on fire.

P.S. Stop the threads about the B29, it has been a week and they are getting annoying.

[Chalenge]

@Tyrannis: Luck doesnt exist. That picture just proves you are not using bombers correctly.

First off... strats are not worth bombing. Strats are put there to act like shiney targets for noobs and it works. Thats not strictly correct... but if you think of it that way you wont be wasting your time bombing a target that doesnt give much reward for bombing it.

Second... taking a perk ride to a puffy ack protected target means you should expect loses. Since you didnt expect loses you should not be bombing there. But in order to really learn from this you will probably have to make the same mistake at least one-hundred more times. At least if your posting history means anything.

 

[Tyrannis]

Should the B-29 be perked about the same as the Ar-234 or the Mossy? I don't fly bombers but the B-29 was as easy to shoot down as a Ju-88. Two passes with a Dora and both burning like a Roman candle. I almost felt bad knowing it took some guy a month or more to build that many perks.

I say perk them, but make them about as common as the 234 or Mossy, which is still pretty rare. I fly a fair amount and only see those two about once a week.

Boo

i agree to this 100%

Maybe if you weren't breathing pure oxygen that high, you wouldn't need 100% gas to get where you are going. Take 25% and go in at 15k, it wont lite on fire.

P.S. Stop the threads about the B29, it has been a week and they are getting annoying.

i had 75% fuel. i flew all the way across the lake in blue arena to the knit city. and i was at 17k. i rarely take my buffs above 20k and have never taken them above 30k. i love to find a fight in my buffs.

P.S. if they annoy you, just simply dont read them.

problem=solved.

@Tyrannis: Luck doesnt exist. That picture just proves you are not using bombers correctly.

First off... strats are not worth bombing. Strats are put there to act like shiney targets for noobs and it works. Thats not strictly correct... but if you think of it that way you wont be wasting your time bombing a target that doesnt give much reward for bombing it.

Second... taking a perk ride to a puffy ack protected target means you should expect loses. Since you didnt expect loses you should not be bombing there. But in order to really learn from this you will probably have to make the same mistake at least one-hundred more times. At least if your posting history means anything.

 

lol. "targets for noobs" eh?

so i guess flying my bombers at 17k through miles of hostile airspace to reach a target that gives its own form of resistance(flak)and often has people that will up in 262s and 163s to defend it is more noobish then say, soaring at 30k and milkruning all the towns i can at the very edge of enemy territory, where i can duck back into friendly airspace if i run into trouble. 

also, ive bombed strats MANY times. in perked rides and normal. in which NONE ive ever lost to flak. so that pretty much throws everything everything you said in the second part of your judgement out the window.

shoo chalenge, go hide in your pony at 20k like you usually do 

[LLogann]

Long time ago, this was a problem....  But they fixed it with the patch.  You're just unlucky man.   

'Nuff Said

[StokesAk]

<snip>

75% is still going to light you on fire, Also if you don't want to die as much take a full formation, the odds are more in favor of you if you have three times the firepower.

[Tyrannis]

75% is still going to light you on fire, Also if you don't want to die as much take a full formation, the odds are more in favor of you if you have three times the firepower.

the first time i was gonna try divebombing in a b29 (for lol's) so it would of been a bad idea to take formations while divebombing.


on the second it wouldnt of mattered wether i had formations or not. it was flak that got me. and knowing my luck right now it would of done it to both my other drones and i'd be in bad shape bomber perk wise  

also it was my center fuel tank that was hit. so even taking 50%-25% wouldnt of helped any. plus i needed 75% to get to target and fly back.

(could maybe of made it on 50%. but im i havent traveled as far to target in a b29 as i did earlier, so i didnt want to risk it)

[Krusty]

Only time you EVER need 75% in a B-29 is if you want to fly back and forth from the edges of the map 3 to 4 times after climbing to 35,000 feet.

Makes no difference with regards to flak damage, but your comment about "needing" 75% is off a tad.

[SEseph]

Only time you EVER need 75% in a B-29 is if you want to fly back and forth from the edges of the map 3 to 4 times after climbing to 35,000 feet.

Makes no difference with regards to flak damage, but your comment about "needing" 75% is off a tad.

More fuel, bigger fire, more posting.. duh! 

[Krusty]

I think the chances of fire from empty tanks is just as great as full tanks. Historically speaking, full tanks didn't burn as much because it's the vapor that burns not the liquid.

[SEseph]

I think the chances of fire from empty tanks is just as great as full tanks. Historically speaking, full tanks didn't burn as much because it's the vapor that burns not the liquid.

I'd agree with it in terms of ignition, but once there is an avenue for the fuel to escape and there is the open flame, the fuel/air mixture would be enough to continue to burn.. kinda like when you were a kid with a can of WD40.. spray it on something and you can light it... light it as your spray and home made flame thrower

I don't think in AH it makes a difference though, a fire's a fire, but that's more of a feeling than a fact based assumption.

[L0nGb0w]

I think it runs out of fuel faster than people think.  I took only %50 on my one and only b29 sortie to the strats and back, and landed with only 1 or 2 mins of fuel to spare

[AWwrgwy]

I think it runs out of fuel faster than people think.  I took only %50 on my one and only b29 sortie to the strats and back, and landed with only 1 or 2 mins of fuel to spare

+1 on this.

I've been taking 75% lately. Bomb eight cities, RTB with 15 minutes left, just in case I need to land further to the rear.

I took 50% in the beginning too and was also landing with single digit minutes of flight time at full throttle left.


wrongway