A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs

[RODBUSTR]

     Service ceiling of 35k or above with a bomb load and ammunition, pretty far fetched.   U.S.A.A.F. studies proved that was imposable. Max alt with combat load of about 58,000 pounds was  around 25,000 feet.  alt of 36,500 feet required a take off weight of 40,000 pounds.  Real B17s or any bombers could not bomb  any higher with any degree of accuracy.  That means getting a bomb within 1000 feet of target. 

[BowHTR]

Where's the data?

[colmbo]

A gent I know who flew 32 missions in B-17s flew one mission at 32,000.  He was 351st BG, 8th AF out of England.  He did say that was the only time they went that high due to poor bombing results.

[save]

I remember Lusche was close to compression in his Me163 trying to follow a diving formation of B17s 

[Lusche]

I remember Lusche was close to compression in his Me163 trying to follow a diving formation of B17s 

I could not keep up with them 

But then, the Me 163 is pretty much overmodeled itself...

[Zimme83]

it is hard to fly in formation at 35k and its also very dangerous without pressurized cabin so there is few good reasons to go up there in a real B-17.

As for accuracy there are some major differences aside from the bomb sight between AH and irl, real life crew did not have their exact altitude or speed and not the wind either. We on the other hand flies in a standard atmosphere where our instruments are thus showing our real altitude and airspeed, so even without an auto bomb sight all you need is one of these and some practice and the bombs will be spot on:

[Mister Fork]

     Service ceiling of 35k or above with a bomb load and ammunition, pretty far fetched.   U.S.A.A.F. studies proved that was imposable. Max alt with combat load of about 58,000 pounds was  around 25,000 feet.  alt of 36,500 feet required a take off weight of 40,000 pounds.  Real B17s or any bombers could not bomb  any higher with any degree of accuracy.  That means getting a bomb within 1000 feet of target. 

So...in order to substantiate your claim, what sources can you reference with your statement?  Not trying to be a arse, just that if you make a bold claim, you should have some data to back that up.  We know operationally, most B-17 runs were anywhere from 10-20k.¹ The most effective yet dangerous altitude was 10k.

1. Swanborough, Gordon and Peter M. Bowers. United States Navy Aircraft since 1911. London: Putnam, Second edition, 1976. ISBN 0-370-10054-9. P-74.

[Lusche]

.  We know operationally, most B-17 runs were anywhere from 10-20k.

I have a hard time to believe that, at least for the ETO. Sounds more like typical RAF night attack altitudes.
Also, German fighters would not have had the issue of engine performance difficulties at that altitude they did suffer from when fighting the 8th AF.

[Lusche]

Some data I found for the 8th AF:



Cited as per
Carroll, James J,
PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF BOMBER CREWS IN THE
EIGHTH AIR FORCE DURING WWII
1997

[Mister Fork]

Some data I found for the 8th AF:

Cited as per
Carroll, James J,
PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF BOMBER CREWS IN THE
EIGHTH AIR FORCE DURING WWII
1997

Just because for a while the 8^th went high after losing hundreds of crews and dozens and dozens of B-17s mid-war (to make it harder to intercept formations and avoid flak) that they stayed high for the duration of the war.  Out west, the 17's flew low. 10k was average for ship convoy intercept and sometimes lower. In this article written by John Correll in October 2008, "Daylight Precision Bombing" (PDF). Airforce Magazine: 60–64 - check page 63-64 here -

Postwar analysis found that accuracy had been about the same in Europe and Asia for day visual and radar precision bombing. Eighth Air Force in Great Britain put 31.8 percent of its bombs within 1,000 feet of the aim point from an average altitude of 21,000 feet.

So the 8th did go high mid war, but they weren't very accurate missions and eventually went lower during the last year of conflict as the Luftwaffe lost air superiority - around late 1943/early 44. Then they went low - and lower depending on how accurate they needed the missions to be.

Other airwing groups and countries used varying altitudes for the B-17 - and most were not above 21k.

[icepac]

The turbocharged B17s made plenty of horsepower at 30k unlike most other bombers.

[Mister Fork]

The turbocharged B17s made plenty of horsepower at 30k unlike most other bombers.

...and the B-24 too...same power plant.

Essentially, any altitude above 5000ft is where these turbo's worked well.  I live in a place that is at 3500ft...I enjoy having a turbo Subaru Forester in this city.

[colmbo]

...and the B-24 too...same power plant.

Nope.  Lib had the PW 1830, Forts the Wright 1820.  They did produce the same 1200hp.

[Mister Fork]

Nope.  Lib had the PW 1830, Forts the Wright 1820.  They did produce the same 1200hp.

ahh, that's how I got my lions crossed.

[RODBUSTR]

 You can find the data from naca archives and from usaaf archives, but common sense.   If a b17 could have carried bombs to an alt of 36000 feet and dropped them accurately.......They would have been doing It.