Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance

[Buzzbait]

S!

I was flying a P-51D the other day in the MA when I noticed a B-17 above me.  I was at approximately 12,000 ft, the B17 was 5.0 distance directly above.  It was obviously headed for one of our fields.   There was a friendly La-7 climbing behind the B-17.  It was 2.0 distance from me.  I was carrying 3/4 fuel with a drop tank which was about ½ full.  I jettisoned the tank.  By the time I got turned around, the B-17 was out of vis range, but I could see a dot followed by another dot which was obviously the Lavochkin.

The La-7 and myself followed the B-17 towards our field, steadily climbing.  After approx. 10 minutes, I got vis contact on the B-17 again.  By that time I was at approx. 25,000 ft , with it at 6.0 distance.   My estimation was that the B-17 was at 28,000ft.  The La-7 was still behind it, but still below.

The B-17 made a run over the field which was the target, then turned to come back.  I also turned, trying to climb parellel to it so I could then get above and ahead to make a front quarter attack.

The La-7 was having all kinds of problems trying to keep up with the B-17’s climb.  I was gaining on it, although the B-17 seemed to be holding its own.

The B-17 made its second run over the field, then kept going in the direction of its territory.  By this time I had reached 32,000 ft.  The distance between myself and the B-17 had narrowed to approximately 2.5 distance.  By my estimation it was at approximately 34,000 feet.  The La-7 had given up, and was descending.  I never saw the La-7 make an attack.  I didn't see it get up to a level with the B-17.

For the next 10 minutes I continued to climb in a straight direction, with the B-17 above and to my left.   By the time I reached 35,000 I was climbing very slowly.  The B-17 was at 1.5 distance, by my estimation at 36,000 feet.  It still was climbing.  By my calculation I would gain equal altitude with  the B-17 in another 5 minutes.  After another few minutes I was at 36,000 with the B-17 still at 1.5.

At this point the B-17 started a turn towards me to bring his guns on me.  I was too far below it to bring my guns to bear so I turned away very gently, attempting to maintain my climb.  Unfortunately, as I turned I lost altitude, dropping to 35,000 which put me quite a bit below the B-17 again.  The B-17 did not seem to lose any altitude whatsoever in its turns.   Distance was now 3.0.  The B-17 turned back towards its territory again and I followed, climbing again.

After another 10 minutes, I was at 37,000, with the B-17 at 2.0 distance.   By my estimation the aircraft was at 38,000 or 39,000 ft.  When I got quite close, the B-17 repeated its tactics, and despite my very careful handling of my aircraft, as soon as I started a turn to avoid letting it get too close, I lost altitude.  The B-17 didn’t lose any altitude and I ended up 2.5 distance again.

By this time I was far over enemy territory and I elected to return to base instead of running out of fuel.

What I noticed was that the B-17 at higher altitudes climbed nearly as good as my P-51D, and better than the  La-7.  The speed difference between the two aircraft while they were in a climb was marginal.  The B-17 held altitude in turns far better than my P-51D.

Historically the B-17 formations bombed from 21,000 –23,000 feet.  They were originally designed to bomb from 30,000 feet but accuracy fell off considerably at that altitude, making them ineffective. Heating systems were unable to function effectively up there.  Waist gunners were found to get severe frostbite and were unable to man their weapons.  Ball turret gunners had frequent instances of heating systems shutting down leading to freezing and frostbite too. Additionally, there were serious problems with oxygen supply.   In combat conditions, Oxygen supply was found not to be functional at all at altitudes over 30,000 feet.  After less than ten missions, the operational level for the bomber formations was reduced to just over 20,000.  The factory rated ceiling for a B-17G was 35,600 ft.

The P-51D’s had a rated ceiling of 41,900 feet, and they regularly operated at 35,000 feet.


Everyone knows the bombers in this game have been given much more powerful defensive guns than historically they had.  The reason would seem to be to give single bombers a fighting chance, since large groups of bombers as per history don’t exist in the Arenas.  Perhaps this is a good balance mechanism.

However, the high altitude performance of these aircraft, to the degree that they outperform fighter aircraft, as well as the accuracy when bombing from ahistorical heights is affecting game balance.

It should be remodelled.

[Pepe]

n/m, it's metioned in your post    

I agree about remodelling Buff task in AH.

Cheers,

Pepe

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Pepe ]

[Toad]

So you spent 30 minutes chasing a buff and didn't even get a shot?

What do will you do next time in the same situation?

[Karnak]

Bomber climb rates don't fall off fast enough.

A Lancaster with bombs gone and 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 35lbs per square foot. The Lancaster's opperational ceiling was 24,000ft. It climbed too slowly above that to be worth the fuel and time.

A B-17G with bombs gone and 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 34.85lbs per square foot.

A P-51D with about 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 36.70lbs per square foot.

Anybody what to take a guess at which of these has a better power to weight ratio at 35,000ft?

It seems to me that bombers, the big ones at least, have way, way to much lift at high altitude.

[Voss]

I'll repost my comments here (sigh).

Buffs can perform full rolls at 35k and above. I have even seen rolling circles that high. Ridiculous.

Next time. Don't climb up to him. Pursue him from a good altitude, like 27k. When he descends to land kill him.

[flakbait]

Voss, I know what you mean all too well. Back in 1.04 I posted about instant buff turns; nothing was done. Hopefully they'll remodel this stupidity into something that actually fits. Right now I can get a buff up around 35,000 feet and literally spin it on one wing with minimal altitude loss. Let's see any fighter to that. Hell, at lower altitudes; 12k or so, you can park the thing on one wing and just let it spin. Then again, maybe it's something else...

I don't know if the flight models have been updated, but the B-17 has been around since BETA. I can remember not having to open the bomb bay doors, cause we didn't have 'em yet! Even then, you could pivot a B-17 on one wing regardless of altitude. If she hasn't been updated since BETA with regards to handling, it would explain this mishap completely. If it has, then I consider it a serious oversight by both HiTech and Pyro. No bomber, loaded to the hilt with bombs and gas, could pull maneuvers like this. I've been in a P-51 chasing a lone B-17 before, and twice the pilot used the "gunner rudder" control to out-maneuver me.

Either tone the gunner controls down so they can't pull stunts like this, or get rid of gunner control entirely. I'd prefer the latter, but the former would be perfectly fine by me.

This is nuts.

-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
 

[iculus]

The number 28,000 comes to mind when talking about operational altitude of a B-17.  Robert Johnson's book, and several other first hand accounts bolster this.  Any altitude near or below 20k in real life, you could expect a rough ride.  

Certainly anything over 30,000 is not likely.  B-17 climbrate over 20k should be looked into.  Also turnrate should be reduced in gunner position.  I fly the fort fairly often, and support this.

<S>IC

[Buzzbait]

S!

As mentioned, the official factory ceiling for the B-17G was just over 35,000.  The one I engaged was up around 39,000 and seemed to have plenty of power to climb higher.

[Vulcan]

B17s and Lancs operated at 18-21k. Accuracy fell drastically above this altitude.

The only buff to operate above 30k was the Mossie in the later part of the war. Apparently German Flak gunners crapped themselves when they figured it was a mossie coming as the mossies often targeted flak batteries with some sort of guided bomb (they called it an 'aerial mine') in the closing 6 months of the war.

This was all from interviews with Lanc pilots, navigators, gunners, and German LW and Flak guys.

Keep the uber-guns for buffs - thats a fair comprimise, but this 35k crap has got to stop. I think over 25k there needs to be something to make buffs less effective (maybe decrease the gun effectiveness, or make the dispersion bigger to reduce the gun accuracy - simulating frozen gunners).

[eddiek]

It is far past time to look into the B17 FM in particular.  Can remember chasing one at 29K in the old beta map last year in a P-38......just as I closed to within 1.5K, he did a split-ess and reversed course on me, and the damn buff did it better than my fighter did.  Buff proponents back then said to look at the surface area of the wing, but I said then and I say now, it was and is total BS if this is still occurring.    

[GRUNHERZ]

LOL  Thats a freakhow, but then whats new..........  

[funkedup]

Buzz:

It's pretty easy to prove that the FM is giving better performance than the real plane.  Get a real flight test figure, test the sim under the same conditions, and if the sim figure is higher then you have proven it.

For example:  
A lot of authors quote 35,600 feet as the B-17G service ceiling.  Service ceiling is defined as the altitude where the maximum sustained climb rate becomes less than 100 fpm.  Widewing explained that the flight tests on US bombers were done with full fuel and no bombs.  

Duplicate those test conditions (or any others you can find), and if the AH plane exceeds real life performance, then you have an argument that HTC will listen to.

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[whels]

and a b17s ceiling was 35.2k in RL,
ww2 combat ceiling was below 30k.


QUOTE]Originally posted by Karnak:
Bomber climb rates don't fall off fast enough.

A Lancaster with bombs gone and 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 35lbs per square foot. The Lancaster's opperational ceiling was 24,000ft. It climbed too slowly above that to be worth the fuel and time.

A B-17G with bombs gone and 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 34.85lbs per square foot.

A P-51D with about 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 36.70lbs per square foot.

Anybody what to take a guess at which of these has a better power to weight ratio at 35,000ft?

It seems to me that bombers, the big ones at least, have way, way to much lift at high altitude.[/QUOTE]

[Toad]

Hey, need somebody to go back and correct a bunch of WW2 records!

There's a lot of obviously bad info written by the guys who were there that needs to be fixed chop-chop!

Any volunteers?
 http://www.303rdbga.com/053.pdf

"303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 53
25 July 1943
Target: Blohm & Voss Shipbuilding Yards, Hamburg, Ger.
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 G.P. H.E.
Crews Dispatched: 20
Crews Lost: 1 crew, Lt. Van Wie - 4 KIA, 5 POW, 1 REP;
2 crewmen wounded: Lt. Kotz & S/Sgt. C.R. Vateckas
Ammo Fired: 95,030 rounds
Aircraft Shot Down: 8 destroyed, 4 probable, 6 damaged
Length of Mission: 6 hours, 15 minutes
Bombing Altitude: 29,220 ft

The bombers flew in very excellent formation, made a good bomb run, and dropped their bombs
well in the target area. The target, however, was practically invisible due to a very effective smoke
screen. Despite this, the crews felt that the bombing, with 48 tons of 500-lb. bombs from 28,000 feet,
was good."

Lots more like that. Man your typewriters men, we've got some history to correct!

Thanks for your support.


<edit> Somebody fix this one too.
 http://www.381st.org/stories_malerich.html

"...The mission of January 10, 1945, was my twenty-first mission and, since GH Navigation and bombing, could be utilized on the target at Cologne, Germany, I was assigned to fly with the 381st Bomb Group stationed at Ridgewell, England. Their Tail Insignia was the Triangle L, the 303rd Bomb Group was Triangle C. The 303rd Bomb Group supplied the lead plane for the mission to Cologne, and myself as Lead GH Navigator....

On this mission, our target was the Cologne/Ostheim Airfield. We carried thirty-six l00 pound bombs at an assigned bombing altitude of 25,000 feet. The temperature at the bombing altitude was -50° Centigrade."


<edit 2> Need to get this one patched as well.
 http://www.390th.org/warstories/Lamentations.htm

"....Lamentations: Dusseldorf
September 9, 1944
By Robert L. Longardner
Pilot, 570th Squadron, G.I. Wonder

At the briefing on the morning of September 9, 1944, we were given a bombing altitude of 26,000 feet. The combat crews erupted in vexation, grumbling about the severity of such altitude I "happy flak valley," Surely the targeted factory could have been hit from 28,000 feet as well as from this defenseless altitude of 26,000 feet which meant that the low squadron would be flying at 25,000 feet until the initial point of the bomb run.

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[Fester']

if that bomber was at 39,000 feet he would be out of gas in a few more minutes.

pop him when he becomes a glider  


buffs with full fuel give accurate performance compared to rl counterparts.

but buffs flown on 25% fuel are doing some strange toejam.