Author Topic: Heavy Bomber tweaks  (Read 1948 times)

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2013, 08:52:06 AM »
I don't think anyone has said it, but it is 100% historically correct for B-24s to burn readily when hit at the wing root. That's just a fact you have to live with.
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline -27th-

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2013, 11:18:48 AM »
One tweak I would request to make the bomber aspect fun is to allow a full crew of gunners onto a single bomber or even allow triple the amount of people allow to gun on set of bombers. It was a fun aspect in Air Warrior and I`m sure it would be a hit again.

 :salute
27th

Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10687
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2013, 01:02:43 PM »
The Boston Mk III and Mosquito both lack copilots as do the B5N2 and TBM-3.


Boston did have a co pilot & he sat here.



Second set of flight controls that could be operated from the gunners seat.




Offline XxDaSTaRxx

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2013, 07:55:54 PM »
1. B24s burned that much against 163s? seems like one shot always always lights the plane. 163 is too easy in the hands of skilled pilot? B24 burns, but 163 never accidentally explodes or burns with 12-18 .x50 cal firing at it?
The B-24 Did have a REALLY BAD reputation for it's wings snapping and fuel lines catching fire. I mean yeah, 1 20mil shell shouldn't exactly do the trick, but it was a real problem that the USAAC had to face, and that's why the B-17 saw more production than the B-24.
Quote from: Latrobe
Do not run.
Face your opponent with all you have.
If you die you have something to learn.


Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2013, 08:03:05 PM »
The B-24 Did have a REALLY BAD reputation for it's wings snapping and fuel lines catching fire. I mean yeah, 1 20mil shell shouldn't exactly do the trick, but it was a real problem that the USAAC had to face, and that's why the B-17 saw more production than the B-24.
The 12,000 B-17s is more than the 18,000 B-24s?   :P
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2013, 09:19:23 PM »

 My issue was the flammability of B24s.


In real life the B-24 had a tendency to catch on fire due to the placement of the fuel tanks in the upper fuselage. 

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 The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18267
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2013, 09:33:12 PM »
One tweak I would request to make the bomber aspect fun is to allow a full crew of gunners onto a single bomber or even allow triple the amount of people allow to gun on set of bombers. It was a fun aspect in Air Warrior and I`m sure it would be a hit again.

 :salute
27th

Won't happen. It was a choice, either gun ships (multiple gunners) OR formations. People wanted to have more bombs per flight than gunners.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #37 on: September 28, 2013, 09:43:45 PM »
Won't happen. It was a choice, either gun ships (multiple gunners) OR formations. People wanted to have more bombs per flight than gunners.
That isn't what the choice was.  It was slaved guns or multiple gunners.  This was the choice that HTC made back before formations existed.  The choice for slaved guns was made due to the extremely low percentage of sorties that had multiple gunners.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Halo46

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1155
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #38 on: September 28, 2013, 10:04:58 PM »
Im surprised to be told I'm "whining" by someone who doesn't seem to have properly read my post.

 

I am not surprised at all since you are not asking anyone for help or information about the game, but instead are making wishes for the game to be changed to how you think it should be without m/any referenced facts supporting your wishes. Honestly, this is a very much tamer BBS in the last few years than I remember. I might even be a little proud of these guys, as it used to be much worse. Even for the one whine comment you received, you had more say something positive about your post than called you a whiner. Just my thoughts; but, yeah, err... no, I do not care for your wish proposals either mostly for what has already been pointed out.

Welcome to the game, grow a thick skin or chose your posts carefully, thin skin gets hurted a lot in here and in game.

 :salute
Used to fly as Halo46, GRHalo, Hobo and Punk at the end.

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #39 on: September 29, 2013, 11:59:02 AM »
Where have you gotten the idea the B-24 wing "flexed and flopped"?  I've crawled around inside the wings on both the B-17 and B-24, I agree that the B-17 wing is probably stronger due to it's truss type construction (you could probably use one as a bridge :devil) but have no reason to think the B-24 was "weak".  As for the flexing, in all the time I flew the airplanes I never saw the wing flex (like you do with modern jets) and down in the southeast US one dark and stormy day we certainly encountered turbulence that would have flexed the wing.  Nor did we ever notice wrinkles in the wing skin, something you will see if a wing is flexing.  (Ever notice the wrinkles on a B-52 fuselage ahead of the wing?)

One guy mentions this and that makes it a common occurrence?  I talked to a lot of B-24 guys and they talked about it's heavy controls, inability to get as high as the B-17, that is was a pain to taxi, had a weak nosewheel, fuel leaks and fires, would easily lose hydraulic system with damage but I don't remember them saying anything about snap rolling.  From my experience the biggest issue flying formation is that the airplane doesn't trim well in pitch and it is very easy to bleed off 5-10 mph by making sloppy pitch inputs so you have to be pretty aggressive to maintain a close formation --- enough so that it would be tiring on a several our flight to Berlin.  As for the snap-roll, on the B-17 if you use aileron to pick a wing up at the stall you'll be upside down before you can say Focke Wulf so might not be a "B-24" issue at all.


:airplane: All the old guys in the 50's that I knew which flew the 24's and 17's, all pretty much summed it up by what you just posted! :salute
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline colmbo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
      • Photos
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #40 on: September 29, 2013, 02:27:51 PM »
In real life the B-24 had a tendency to catch on fire due to the placement of the fuel tanks in the upper fuselage. 

ack-ack

Fuel tanks on the B-24 are in the wings, there is no fuel tank in the fuselage (with the possible exception of a bombbay ferry tank).  The fire issue was a fuel manifold in the fuselage located forward of the waist, above the bombbay--just forward of the trailing edge of the wing.  The fuel lines/connections leaked.  The airplane always had fuel fumes in it...it was policy to fly with the bomb bay doors cracked to help ventilate.
Columbo

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."

Fate whispers to the warrior "You cannot withstand the storm" and the warrior whispers back "I AM THE STORM"

Offline colmbo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
      • Photos
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #41 on: September 29, 2013, 02:40:38 PM »
The B-24 Did have a REALLY BAD reputation for it's wings snapping and fuel lines catching fire

Bad rep with who?  flight simmers who have never flown?  In talking to guys that flew the airplane to war the big thing they talked about was fire, never heard them say anything about losing a wing....and I was paying attention since I was flying the same airplane everyday.

As for B-17 vs B-24.....you put a bunch of vets in a room and the B-24 guys will claim it was the best, -17 guys will say ditto about the B-17.  Of course these days we're only talking to the survivors. :devil
« Last Edit: September 29, 2013, 03:31:50 PM by colmbo »
Columbo

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."

Fate whispers to the warrior "You cannot withstand the storm" and the warrior whispers back "I AM THE STORM"

Offline pembquist

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1928
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #42 on: September 29, 2013, 03:09:34 PM »
Fuel tanks on the B-24 are in the wings, there is no fuel tank in the fuselage (with the possible exception of a bombbay ferry tank).  The fire issue was a fuel manifold in the fuselage located forward of the waist, above the bombbay--just forward of the trailing edge of the wing.  The fuel lines/connections leaked.  The airplane always had fuel fumes in it...it was policy to fly with the bomb bay doors cracked to help ventilate.

Were the crews all under 23 or so? I get freaked out when my father in law fills his aged gas cans and carries them around in the back of his scion (30 gallons or so.) Gasoline terrifies me but I remember draining the tank of my step van into a sheet rock bucket when I was younger and more clever.
Pies not kicks.

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2013, 12:59:55 PM »
Were the crews all under 23 or so? I get freaked out when my father in law fills his aged gas cans and carries them around in the back of his scion (30 gallons or so.) Gasoline terrifies me but I remember draining the tank of my step van into a sheet rock bucket when I was younger and more clever.
:airplane: In talking with people who flew in the big war, most gunners on bombers were in the 19 to 22 year age group, while most bomber pilots were between 21 and 25, with the exception of the squadron and wing officers, but even those guys were young, and many when on to be generals by age 40, (Curtis Lemay). They came from all walks of life in America and they all had one thing in common, they wanted to help win the war! The quickest way to the air war was to vol. to be a gunner! Count the number of gunners needed on a 17, 24 and you see real quick the military problem of filling those positions. Then you couple that with gunners getting wounded, killed or captured after bailing out, gunners were in short supply until about mid 1943.
During the war years when building large bombers, engineering had not learned the lesson of "flex" joints in fuel lines and therein lays some of the problem with the 24. Any large aircraft is going to flex a certain amount, especially where the wings and fuseledge are joined! They finally started running crossover fuel lines in the wing "box", the center section where the main spar of the wing cross from one side of the aircraft to the other and has less flex than other parts of the wing area and then a lot of those fuel problems went away.
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline XxDaSTaRxx

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: Heavy Bomber tweaks
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2013, 07:21:50 PM »
The 12,000 B-17s is more than the 18,000 B-24s?   :P
I guess I am wrong, according to Boeing, The B-17 was produced a total of 12,731 times, where as the B-24 was produced 18,482 times. My bad.
Quote from: Latrobe
Do not run.
Face your opponent with all you have.
If you die you have something to learn.