Author Topic: Historical airfield limitations  (Read 3554 times)

Offline Traveler

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3148
      • 113th Lucky Strikes
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #60 on: December 24, 2013, 07:51:40 PM »

I'm not gonna argue with 70 year old second hand anecdotes about b17 ride quality at altitude. all I can say is down low in thermals in the middle of summer it was pretty smooth..

nevertheless.. I don't get it..   you just want b17's to bounce around constantly even at high altitudes? why? to make it harder for them to defend themselves?

I didn't say I wanted anything bouncing around, I said that a friend who actually was a B17 gunner remarked that he felt that he didn't remember the bird being as stable a gun platform.
Traveler
Executive Officer
113th LUcky Strikes
http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/113th_Lucky_Strikes

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #61 on: December 24, 2013, 08:14:36 PM »
Walter was a B17 gunner, he laughed at B17 model ,  he wondered where the turbulence was, he said that  he didn, t remember the B17 as a gun platform being that stable.  I can even up B17's now and hit target, no calabration needed, they dummed it down so much.  It's to bad was a great game in it's day, but  today not so much.


I still don't know what you mean by it being dumbed down or being better back whenever.. bomber gunning in the game has always been the same, as far as I know.. (??)

kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #62 on: December 24, 2013, 11:27:34 PM »
why the plane would be bouncing around more at 15,000(?) than at 1500 is beyond me.



I've been on plenty of commercial airliners that have been bouncing all over at 25-35K or whatever it is they fly at.  It sounds like you just caught a calm day.
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #63 on: December 25, 2013, 01:57:43 AM »
I've been on plenty of commercial airliners that have been bouncing all over at 25-35K or whatever it is they fly at.  It sounds like you just caught a calm day.

Don't be silly.. in general, it's smoother up higher.

kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline colmbo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
      • Photos
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #64 on: December 25, 2013, 02:26:22 AM »
I have no idea, except my friend did his 25 and flew in all the gun positions, my guess would be that there is a big difference between going for a ride and trying to get a bead on a 109 or 190 when your life was on the line. His opinion was based on his experience over Germany, where your experience was based on a 20 minute pleasure flight.

Your guess is right on.  I have a little over 300 hours in a B-17.  Most of it in one of the pilot seats but also a fair amount of time in the nose, radio room, waist and tail.  The B-17, like any airplane, is a smooth ride when the air is calm.  Throw in some turbulence and the tail starts wagging around which would make it tuff on the waist gunners. (The wife was in the waist on a long leg and pee'd in a ziplock.  As she was sealing the ziplock one of us bumped the rudder just enough to wiggle the tail, knocked her over with her flight suit still around her ankle, dumped the bag of yellow on herself --- interesting debrief after that flight.   :rolleyes: Another occasion I was in the radio room as we did a ride for some paying pax.  In the radio room with me were two WWII bomber vets and the handsomehunk up front decides to do a wingover.  He did it gentle but even so both the old gents went to the floor when we got light over the top.)

Have a nervous pilot trying to maintain a tight formation and the ride is going to be rougher as he jockies the airplane around.  Add some turbulence from the bomber groups ahead and it'll be even worse.  Doing the Tico airshow we were following the B-24 with a couple B-25s behind us as we made racetracks with bomb bay open passes in front of the crowd, pyrotechnics going off under us as we passed.  Mike worked his butt off that day with the climate induced turbulence from thermal activity combined with the wake of the B-24 and the occasional explosion under us.  Moved us around quite a bit in the seats.

kvuo75, your ride was done without you having to wear fleece lined flying gear, bulky fleece boots and gloves or any armor.  It's easy to do anything in t-shirt, shorts and running shoes.  :D
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 kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #65 on: December 25, 2013, 03:15:50 AM »
colmbo, you are one of the few people I respect the knowledge of on these forums.

all I said was there typically would be less turbulence at higher altitudes.

traveler was saying the game is botched because it's too easy to hit fighters with guns from a B17 which makes no sense at all.

and yes, my 30 minute ride was done in shorts & tshirt weather, i just looked at a pic i took of cockpit we were cruising at 1900rpm and 27"  :)

« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 03:36:51 AM by kvuo75 »
kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #66 on: December 25, 2013, 03:47:23 AM »


 :aok
kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #67 on: December 25, 2013, 04:30:18 AM »
I retract my statement that it was easy to walk around.. it was actually funny to watch people walk around. it's still light-moderate chop tho, 1500 agl in mid summer sun..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcx89bz_8aY
kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #68 on: December 25, 2013, 06:09:11 AM »
I'm going back to the message that caught my attention in the thread.

Would love to see an arena with realistic weather, wind, ceilings and the like. 
ceilings would force everything below the ceiling. no bombers would be able to operate above it, so nobody would have to operate above it.

Quote
A friend of mine before his passing, viewed the B17, now Walter was a B17 gunner, he laughed at B17 model ,  he wondered where the turbulence was, he said that  he didn, t remember the B17 as a gun platform being that stable.  I can even up B17's now and hit target, no calabration needed, they dummed it down so much.  It's to bad was a great game in it's day, but  today not so much.

yep, you just want easier to kill bombers.

kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline Traveler

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3148
      • 113th Lucky Strikes
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #69 on: December 25, 2013, 07:38:48 AM »
colmbo, you are one of the few people I respect the knowledge of on these forums.

all I said was there typically would be less turbulence at higher altitudes.

traveler was saying the game is botched because it's too easy to hit fighters with guns from a B17 which makes no sense at all.

and yes, my 30 minute ride was done in shorts & tshirt weather, i just looked at a pic i took of cockpit we were cruising at 1900rpm and 27"  :)


Please show me where I made that statment.  What I did was relate what an actual B17 gunner with 25 missions over Germany said were his thoghts on the B17's as a gun platform.
Traveler
Executive Officer
113th LUcky Strikes
http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/113th_Lucky_Strikes

Offline Traveler

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3148
      • 113th Lucky Strikes
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #70 on: December 25, 2013, 07:47:19 AM »
I'm going back to the message that caught my attention in the thread.
ceilings would force everything below the ceiling. no bombers would be able to operate above it, so nobody would have to operate above it.

yep, you just want easier to kill bombers.



My wish is for realistic airfields.  I'd love realistic weather.  I'd rather have that than the realistic shadows we are getting.
Traveler
Executive Officer
113th LUcky Strikes
http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/113th_Lucky_Strikes

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #71 on: December 25, 2013, 08:59:07 AM »
My wish is for realistic airfields.  I'd love realistic weather.  I'd rather have that than the realistic shadows we are getting.

Watching a blizzard from the tower would be great fun.



Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #72 on: December 25, 2013, 09:23:58 AM »
Don't be silly.



I'm not being silly.  I've logged thousands of hours in commercial airliners as a business passenger.  One of the reasons they like you to remain seated with your seat belt on is turbulance, regardless of altitude.

What's silly is thinking that once above a certain altidude all turbulence ends just because one day you took a short, low altitude pleasure ride and it was calm.
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.

Offline Traveler

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3148
      • 113th Lucky Strikes
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #73 on: December 25, 2013, 09:52:33 AM »
Watching a blizzard from the tower would be great fun.



[/quotxe]
 
Than you stay in the MA, I'm  asking for an historical arena that offers all plane sets to all sides, with realistic weather and airfield liminations.  Do away with hangers for fighters, have thirty or fourty aircraft revetments spread around the field , that could be  destroyed.  It would be a change to the way the game is played.  Make the airfield so it could be captured seperate from any near by towns.

My Dad told me that it was the weather over target that determined flight ops .  For AH it would be more like the weather over England and France  because our fights are seldom more than fifty miles away.  But guys striking the HQ or strates  are traveling over 150, or 200 miles to target could expect a different weather system.
Traveler
Executive Officer
113th LUcky Strikes
http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/113th_Lucky_Strikes

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Historical airfield limitations
« Reply #74 on: December 25, 2013, 09:57:53 AM »
Than you stay in the MA, I'm  asking for an historical arena that offers all plane sets to all sides, with realistic weather and airfield liminations.  Do away with hangers for fighters, have thirty or fourty aircraft revetments spread around the field , that could be  destroyed.  It would be a change to the way the game is played.  Make the airfield so it could be captured seperate from any near by towns.

My Dad told me that it was the weather over target that determined flight ops .  For AH it would be more like the weather over England and France  because our fights are seldom more than fifty miles away.  But guys striking the HQ or strates  are traveling over 150, or 200 miles to target could expect a different weather system.

All plane sets on all sides is not an 'historical arena.'