Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Maxopti1 on August 26, 2000, 08:10:00 PM
-
Also to you, what do I have amazed above the HQ of the Rooks, do it seem a Knight B17 ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
(http://web.tiscalinet.it/amisquad/Kni_B17_35K.jpg)
If the answer is .... YES!
Zigrat, remember your promise, you must eat your shirt. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
*****
I take offense to that, as do my fellow knights.
Show me where a knight was EVER above 27k, and ill eat my shirt.
You are full of it.
*****
Jokes apart from, need to find a solution to this problem. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/confused.gif)
I have found this boy, that flew calm to 35K, I have not pursued some I initially have attached it.
After have him solicited on the channel 1, not receiving answer and wanting to know whoever he was, I have not had other alternative that attach it.
Obviously, without any possibility of success.
He was, Roadkll2
Creed that the solutions would be:
1) make so that the automatic pilot, levels automatically to a determined quota.
2) make so that beyond such quota, the Norden and the guns, they don't work.
The problem is:
what is the correct quota? 27K ?
In this way, if one wants to go for a walk to 30/35K, could do it, but he is harmless. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
What do you think about this?
Max
------------------
When you are flown, there is an only certainty:
In a way or in the other, to earth you will return.
[This message has been edited by Maxopti1 (edited 08-26-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Maxopti1 (edited 08-26-2000).]
-
In brand W I almost always buff at 30K+. Why is there something wrong with people buffing like that here?
------------------
Rendar
-
Spit dweeb (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
ok max sorry (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) i dont even know this guy. when i say knight i was referring more to one of us knights who often work togethe etcera, but you caught me.
<mmm cotton, tasty>
-
bahh ani biscuit or rock can change for knight and fly like this so leave the knights alone :-))))
-
remove the zoom in the norden and everything will be fine
-
Funny a Rook should mention Knight bombers above 30k. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) All night long while I was on the rooks were sending 30k - 35k bombers at all our southern bases.
Trust me, the problem happens in all countries. I say decrease the zoom on the Norden. Besides this issue, I think the bombers in AH are about right as far as guns and toughness.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
Zigrat, you know there are dweebs in all countries. Why didn't you go buy an edible shirt ahead of time? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
What was the magnification(if any) on a real Norden bombsight?
-
I have only seen the norden they have at the U.S.A.F.M. at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Daytion, Ohio.
They have a picture under the Norden, and they say it simulates 25K Ft. And you can pick out individual buildings from that altitude. If you have ever flown a commercial airliner over a built up area you can pick up Semi-Trucks from 30K. feet with your mark one eyball. The Norden works a lot like a telescope or microscope, except that the nobs and dials were connected to the control surfaces of the aircraft. I have also read that on the practice ranges when bombadiers were learning their craft it was possible to hit a duece and a half with a single bomb from 18,000 feet.
The difficulty in level bombing in a B-17 of World War Two and using the Norden bombsite from great altitude lies not in the ability of the equipment for the most part (didn't work in overcast conditions) but of the men who populated the aircraft. The suits they wore had electric heaters in them. They had oxygen systems to deliver oxygen to the men. It was cramped, it was cold, it was frightening. The only time I have read of B-17s operating at altitude of 30K ft or greater were when the empty aircraft were ferried from the U.S. to England. Flying at 30K Ft allowed the planes to ride a east bound jet stream and save fuel. At that altitude they could also avoid much of the weather. There were problems flying that high though. Often the controls iced up. Often the navigator would have to tour the aircraft and occasionally the pilot would have to go back down to 20K feet to melt ice. I have read about men who foze to death on the ferry flights chipping ice from inside the planes. The icing caused increased drag, which caused a loss of fuel efficency. The B-17s being ferried over the oceans had internal fuel bladders installed to increase the range. They removed most of the defensive guns, and used a skeleton crew of Pilot, Co-Pilot (Sometimes navigator), somtimes a Navigator (Sometimes also a flight engineer) and a Flight Engineer.
I have never read of a Bombing Raid of over 27K until the B-29 was introduced, and it was later models of B-29s, without all the defensive gunners that were able to operate at those altitudes. (B-29s were equipped with Radar Guided .50 cal electrically driven turrets.)
The air up there was as thin for B-17s as it was for fighters, B-17s at 30K should suffer from very nearly the same penalties as fighter aircraft. Except for gentle sweeping turns, a B-17 should suffer decreased control reliability at that altitude. In AH the standard attack by a fighter of climbing above a bomber and diving to attack is easily defeated by a bomber who can make a violent manuver to avoid the bounce. The fighter if trying to turn to compensate will suffer aerodynamic difficulties, the B-17 won't. Ergo Advantage B-17. That is the question I have asked time and again. Why can't fighter aircraft whose primary responsibilities were to either attack or defend those bombers manuver at the altitudes with the bombers?
The other tactic I have seen employed by individuals is to convert their bombers from Bombers to Fighters. I have watched, and I admit I have seen Knights do this, is to salvo their bombs just after taking off, and us their aircraft as a mobile anti-aircraft platform.
What I have suggest is.
1. Improved parity of manuverability of fighter aircraft and bomber aircraft at altitude.
2. Remove internet connectivity enhancement of range to the Bombers guns (excluding the tail turret) when the bombers expell their ordinance. (Ergo, if you drop your bombs you would have the same range for the gunners as all .50 cal equipped fighters.)
3. Increase the hardness of the Bombers so that they have an increased chance of surviving multiple attacks by fighters.
Additionally I would agree to a geometric decrease in accuracy above 25K.
I.E. at 25K you have the same accuracy as now. At 26K you suffer a 25% accuracy penalty, at 27K you suffer a 50% penalty, at 28K a 75% accuracy penalty, and at 29K at 90% penalty. Go up 2 percent per thousand from there so at 34K you would get a miss.
I would rate this penalty against targets the size of the Fighter Hangars.
I do not want to discourage bombers from fullfilling their roles as an offensive weapon designed to deliver ordinance with a fair amount of accuracy to a target. I only want to discourage AH Bomber Pilots from
1. Flying their bombers as if they were fighter aircraft.
2. Using the advantage of being able to perform violent manuvers at altitudes where fighter aircraft are unable to manuver.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Render,
In brand W I almost always buff at 30K+. Why is there something wrong with people buffing like that here?
Because in RL you couldn't get an empty B-17 to 32k let alone a loaded one, and anything above about 25k and you couldn't hit the broad side of Germany with it.
Sharky
-
"Because in RL you couldn't get an empty B-17 to 32k let alone a loaded one"
On the 14th May 1943, the B-17 groups were allowed to fly higher than the B-24 groups for the first time in the ETO. How high did they fly?
Howard Hernan recalls: 'The fighter opposition was intense and the flak heavy. We flew at 32,000ft in the high squadron, high group; the highest I had ever flown. Most of the 88mm flak was below us. The Germans did shoot up some 105s but Bales, Capt Campbell's roommate, flying in Idaho Potato Peeler, was shot down 20 miles offshore.
Also go and look up the ceiling of the B-17 sometime.
The bombsight is the real issue here, not the aircraft.
-
Originally posted by juzz:
"Because in RL you couldn't get an empty B-17 to 32k let alone a loaded one"
On the 14th May 1943, the B-17 groups were allowed to fly higher than the B-24 groups for the first time in the ETO. How high did they fly?
Also go and look up the ceiling of the B-17 sometime.
The bombsight is the real issue here, not the aircraft.
Hehehe, they went up to 32000 feet?...I wonder how many rabbits died in their bombing of an open field, because I'm sure they didnt hit any factory (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Put a cloud layer over the fields @28k (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I was under the impression that B-29s didn't bomb from their max altitude cause the jet stream screwed with the bombing runs. B-29s in the Pacific firebombed on the deck a lot like the British did with the Germans, no high altitude, no daylight, no pinpoint accuracy, just fly in and drop thousands of incendiaries and let the fire do the rest.
Now if the B-29 didn't fly at these heights, why in the H-E-DOUBLE HOCKEYSTICKS would a B-17 do so. It seems to me that these guys were freezing enough at 20-25k (ever see what they had to where up there? I have and I own a sheepskin coat just like they did, complete with nose art on the back) and some of you guys are saying that they added another 10-15 thousand feet for bombing altitude? The whole thought seems absurd to me, unless I personally hear it from a Veterens mouth.
And Juzz, I looked up the ceiling of the B-17 and the book I read said 30,600 feet.
I would also like to say that I would like to see contrails (condensation trails from the hot exhaust meeting the frozen air in ares of high humidity) behind high flying aircraft. It would look cool as well as a visual cue to a high flying aircraft.
------------------
Meine Schwester hat keine kartoffel salat? Du bist eine lustige Buba!!!
[This message has been edited by Mattibaby80 (edited 08-27-2000).]
-
Juzz,
Sorry but one referance in a book written by a guy 30 years after the fact doesn't change the fact that a fully loaded B-17 isn't getting to 32K. Not to mention the crew would probably freeze to death even with their suits, or die from asphixia when their oxygen mask froze. It also doesn't address wing ice or anything else.
Thanks,
Sharky
-
RAM: I didn't say they hit anything, did I? Besides that's a bombsight issue, not FM.
Mattibaby80: It doesn't really get much colder from 25k-35k I think, and if you go alot higher the atmosphere actually starts getting hotter again. I forgot the credit for my quote. It's from Four Miles High by Martin Bowman. From the inner sleeve: Aviation author Martin Bowman has interviewed hundreds of survivors from both air and ground crews.
So it is a quote from a veteran. Unfortunately Horward Hernan is dead, so you can't ask him personally.
As for ceiling, Boeing gives a 35,600ft ceiling for the B-17G. (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/boeing/b17.html)
Anyway the point was to disprove this rubbish:"Because in RL you couldn't get an empty B-17 to 32k let alone a loaded one" Ps: It's 2000, so it would be 2000-1943=57 years after the fact, not 30.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 08-27-2000).]
-
Originally posted by juzz:
RAM: I didn't say they hit anything, did I? Besides that's a bombsight issue, not FM.
Mattibaby80: It doesn't really get much colder from 25k-35k I think, and if you go alot higher the atmosphere actually starts getting hotter again. I forgot the credit for my quote. It's from Four Miles High by Martin Bowman. From the inner sleeve: Aviation author Martin Bowman has interviewed hundreds of survivors from both air and ground crews.
So it is a quote from a veteran. Unfortunately Horward Hernan is dead, so you can't ask him personally.
As for ceiling, Boeing gives a 35,600ft ceiling for the B-17G. (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/boeing/b17.html)
Anyway the point was to disprove this rubbish:"Because in RL you couldn't get an empty B-17 to 32k let alone a loaded one" Ps: It's 2000, so it would be 2000-1943=57 years after the fact, not 30.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 08-27-2000).][/b]
There is hardly any atmosphere in the thermosphere...don't expect a prop plane to fly at Sputnik alts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Still it gets colder at altitude for every thousand feet you go up tho...
My Neighbor had a great picture of their formation in bound Germany at 29k or so, and I believe there was still a squadron above his on that raid. Still loaded, and B-17's below them as far as the eye can see (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
Which reminds me, I need to ask his wife about it.
- Jig
-
Ok, I've read what you said, I didn't mean to sound like a smart ass, and looked at that website. But if B-17s were flying at 30k, where does that leave the escorts? I was under the impression (and read somewhere) that escorts (not all of them) flew at least 4-6k higher than the bombers to catch anyone making diving attacks. That puts the fighters at 34-36k, and from what I've been hearing about high altitude and the FM of the fighters, its almost impossible to catch high buffs.
Now according to your site, the B-17G had a cruising speed of about 150mph. I find it somewhat dumb that fighters doing at least 100-200mph faster than a cruising B-17 are not able to catch it at high altitude.
Also on that website, it states that the B-17G had a maximum bomb load of 20,000 lbs of bombs, and while that is true, it wasn't used often. Normal loads consisted of 4-5k bomb loads. Just because it says there that the B-17G could reach 35,600 and could carry a 20k load doesn't mean it was always put into practice.
Again I don't mean to be a smart bellybutton and I'm not insulting what your saying, I'm simply voicing my own opinion on this subject.
------------------
Meine Schwester hat keine kartoffel salat? Du bist eine lustige Buba!!!
-
Seems like a lot of whining to me.
Sure, the buffs may be up there, but as the screenshot shows, fighters can get up there too, so whats the big deal? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Everyone just wants easier kills. Work for it.
BTW, the AH B17 is a G model the B17G had a listed service ceiling of 35,600 ft.
Dago
-
Originally posted by Mattibaby80:
Ok, I've read what you said, I didn't mean to sound like a smart ass, and looked at that website. But if B-17s were flying at 30k, where does that leave the escorts? I was under the impression (and read somewhere) that escorts (not all of them) flew at least 4-6k higher than the bombers to catch anyone making diving attacks. That puts the fighters at 34-36k, and from what I've been hearing about high altitude and the FM of the fighters, its almost impossible to catch high buffs.
Now according to your site, the B-17G had a cruising speed of about 150mph. I find it somewhat dumb that fighters doing at least 100-200mph faster than a cruising B-17 are not able to catch it at high altitude.
Also on that website, it states that the B-17G had a maximum bomb load of 20,000 lbs of bombs, and while that is true, it wasn't used often. Normal loads consisted of 4-5k bomb loads. Just because it says there that the B-17G could reach 35,600 and could carry a 20k load doesn't mean it was always put into practice.
Again I don't mean to be a smart bellybutton and I'm not insulting what your saying, I'm simply voicing my own opinion on this subject.
Take into account the 190's have 37k service ceiling, 109's are about the same, P-51's, P-47's and P-38's all have a service celing over 40k
IMO THATS what needs to be looked into (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
Well those numbers are probably all correct, but just not all at the same time. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
From what I can gather, the mission in question was flown without escorts. The book also mentions that the B-17 cruised at about 160mph IAS, and the B-24 at 180-185mph IAS - which caused trouble in this mission as the Liberator groups had to zig-zag to avoid outpacing the Forts, and they ended up flying right over a big flak installation.
In AH though, you can bet that all the B-17's are flown with full throttle from T/O to landing, so they probably "cruise" at close to top speed: Around 280mph TAS. Most fighters will only have about 100mph speed advantage at 30k+. Considering that fighters are usually climbing after the B-17 at it's speed or lower to catch it, they have to reach co-alt before leveling off, accelerating and actually starting to close on it.
The real problem as I see it is that in RL, the B-17's didn't fly at 30k+ the vast majority of the time because they couldn't hit anything from up there.
Yet in AH you can hit a single AAA gun with a single bomb from 35,000ft.
-
Originally posted by juzz:
Well those numbers are probably all correct, but just not all at the same time. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
From what I can gather, the mission in question was flown without escorts. The book also mentions that the B-17 cruised at about 160mph IAS, and the B-24 at 180-185mph IAS - which caused trouble in this mission as the Liberator groups had to zig-zag to avoid outpacing the Forts, and they ended up flying right over a big flak installation.
In AH though, you can bet that all the B-17's are flown with full throttle from T/O to landing, so they probably "cruise" at close to top speed: Around 280mph TAS. Most fighters will only have about 100mph speed advantage at 30k+. Considering that fighters are usually climbing after the B-17 at it's speed or lower to catch it, they have to reach co-alt before leveling off, accelerating and actually starting to close on it.
The real problem as I see it is that in RL, the B-17's didn't fly at 30k+ the vast majority of the time because they couldn't hit anything from up there.
Yet in AH you can hit a single AAA gun with a single bomb from 35,000ft.
You can't see diddly over 30k.
I've seen the big building at HQ but that was it...none of the other buildings at HQ showed up and neither do the acks.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
You can't see diddly over 30k.
I've seen the big building at HQ but that was it...none of the other buildings at HQ showed up and neither do the acks.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
*sticks foot in mouth*
Tried it offline. Zoom is way uber.
(http://bigdweeb.homestead.com/files/ahss9.jpg)
B-17 service ceiling, 35,600ft
(http://bigdweeb.homestead.com/files/ahss10.jpg)
29,500ft
But, I still can't hit crap from that alt (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The B-17 over-corrects to much to line up on something as small as an ack...but maybe that's just me. Even during the SE today we had trouble hitting the HQ from 24,000ft.
- Jig
-
Then how did I drop a single 500lb bomb from 35,000ft and land it 25ft from the ack I aimed at? Ever heard of the Z key?
Edit: Oops I see you have. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
This is what happened in RL when RAF B-17 dweebs tried to bomb from 30k (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The RAF planned to use the Fortress I on unescorted daylight bombing raids against targets in Europe, relying on the vaunted defensive firepower of the Fortress to fend off fighter attacks. The first sortie with Fortress Is was flown from Polebrook on July 8, 1941 against Wilhelmshaven. Three planes took part. Engine trouble forced one of the planes to divert to a second target, but the other two went on to attack the naval barracks at Wilhelmshaven from an altitude of 30,000 feet. Unfortunately, the planes were not able to hit anything from such extreme altitudes. In addition, their crews found that the temperatures at this altitude were so cold that their defensive machine guns froze up when they tried to fire them. However, all planes returned safely to base.
On July 24, a group of Fortresses attacked the French naval installation at Brest. They were equipped with the Sperry rather than the famous Norden bombsight. The Fortresses attacked from 30,000 feet and managed to miss their target completely. German fighters pounced on the formation, but all bombers returned to England. However, one of the raiding Fortresses was so badly shot up by the German fighters that it disintegrated upon landing.
But of course, as it is in AH, the RL LW managed to be bigger dweebs! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
By the end of August(1942) the Luftwaffe had two operational Ju 86Rs, and they wasted no time in getting them over England. They bombed from 40,000ft, and the Spitfire Mk VIs sent up to intercept them just couldn't make it.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 08-28-2000).]
-
Hi,
I have begun this discourse, for joke a little bit and for feel your opinion, respect to this problem.
Look like me yet that the been widening topic too.
I try to put some order. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (I am presumptuous)
The fact that the B17 could fly to 36.500 ft., I think is not in discussion.
Is in discussion his precision of bombardment to altitudes so elevated.
IMHO, the precision of the Norden, for altitudes superior at 25/27K is too elevated.
My intention was of look for a common position and subsequently, ask to Pyro of modify this parameter. (If it is possible).
Probably, I am not been clear, (my English is bad. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
The question that I set is:
Do you also think that, must the precision of the Norden to elevated altitude be modified?
If do you think so, does the altitude of 27K, to you, seem correct?
Do you think that also for the guns, must be reduced the frequency of shot to the high altitudes?
If do you think so, than and from which altitude?
Cheers!
Max
------------------
When you are flown, there is an only certainty:
In a way or in the other, to earth you will return.
-
Way to fix problem with high buffs would be to make engines generate more heat with higher throttle.
Was it so that B-17 engine could overheat if run over 80% throttle constantly.
Try to figure what happens when you use 100% throttle for few minutes, it would eventually overheat and start burning probably.
20% lack in throttle would really make people in AH think twice do they go fly to 35k or not.
-
remove the zoom in the norden and everything will be fine
Fine remove it but give realistic splash damage from bombs, at the moment you need to hit targets right on the nose to do damage so is it any wonder bombers in AH need such a good norden and a zoom feature? its all so very easy to whine about stratto buffs (although I agree 32K+ is a bit excessive) you need to give them the capability to carpet bomb in numbers and still have an effect in the arena, or would you just like to see them lower so the stratto dweeb fighters can pick them off easier? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Well, I just want a fighting chance against buffs.
Even if I launch for an incoming raid on friendly HQ, at *best*, I can go through the bombers once. Then, after losing altitude, I have to reverse, grab alt BACK up to 35-37k and then catch up with the buffs, who are travelling at quite high speed at altitude.
Now, the occasional Astronaut is not a problem to me. But when Dweebs get organized and launch 5-8 bombers at your city and HQ, and are almost untouchable at altitude, it's just not funny anymore. It feels like cheating. You may argue that it's not, but that's how it *feels* to me. Where's the skill involved? Where's the "let's have a great fight" attitude - the one we're here to get?
Just my views.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
I think 27k is the max altitude a b17 should ever go. above that is pure dweebery.
-
I saw an interview with some German Flak Battery guys, they said the ONLY buff that made bombing runs over 30k was the Mossie.
I think a nice big FOG layer at 25k would do it :-)
At the moment we have the occassional banana (not you banana... I mean a real banana) who flies a group of buffs at 30+k to take out dar etc. Its spoiling gameplay. Pissing people off etc. I have no problems with buff guns etc, just want those altitudes tweeked a little.
-
It's simple; tweak the bombsight.
-
Or you can use the wind settings in the arena to create a large windshear at 25k that make any bombs dropped above that altitude, in effect "area bombing".
Real simple, real quick.
Of course I'm not sure the wind effects bombs, but I suspect it does.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
HT,
Please fix this problem by modeling the Me-163 Comet (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I got to fly the one you modelled for WB and it was sweet! 35k buff? Pffstt! no problem (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
udie
-
WTG Udie!!
Me-163 Komet !!!!!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
-
Yes, Komet please! (perk!)
-
Why didn't I think of that? Komet rocks! The fuel burn would have to be fudged for the MA though, it only had 4 minutes at full throttle in RL.
Or you can use the wind settings in the arena to create a large windshear at 25k that make any bombs dropped above that altitude, in effect "area bombing".
Real simple, real quick.
Of course I'm not sure the wind effects bombs, but I suspect it does
I suspected it did too, but it seems... IT DOESN'T!!!
I set up a 100mph crosswind at 4,000ft-30,000ft, then bombed from 8,000ft, hitting a single ack with the same accuracy as normal, despite flying with the nose about 40º away from the ground path. The bombs appear to be unaffected by the wind change at 4,000ft, and the bombsight compensates perfectly for the drift angle.
I will experiment further.
Setup a 100mph crosswind again, from 15k-30k. Funny part is the wind still blows above 30k, I bombed from 33k, put a 500lb bomb within 30ft of an ack.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 08-29-2000).]
-
Originally posted by juzz:
Why didn't I think of that? Komet rocks! The fuel burn would have to be fudged for the MA though, it only had 4 minutes at full throttle in RL.
I suspected it did too, but it seems... IT DOESN'T!!!
I set up a 100mph crosswind at 4,000ft-30,000ft, then bombed from 8,000ft, hitting a single ack with the same accuracy as normal, despite flying with the nose about 40º away from the ground path. The bombs appear to be unaffected by the wind change at 4,000ft, and the bombsight compensates perfectly for the drift angle.
I will experiment further.
Setup a 100mph crosswind again, from 15k-30k. Funny part is the wind still blows above 30k, I bombed from 33k, put a 500lb bomb within 30ft of an ack.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 08-29-2000).]
Well, a realistic thing to do would be to program the Norden manually. Ya know. Download the manual, gather intellegence, and hope that it's right and still the same over the target.
Btw...was looking at what a Norden looks like at 32k (From B-29's over Japan)
AH isn't far off with zoom ability (target was a industrial port) But the clarity is way to high IMO. It looks to...3D from that alt. From that camera POV it appears very very flat from that altitude, and aircraft vibration severly limits clarity as well (Kinda like binoculars mounted to a truck dash, but to a lesser extent, very fine vibarations.)
Unless of course the B-17 has a very distant model in comparison to the B-29. (And given the time between the two there probably is)
film quality looked pretty dang good, doubt it messed the image up much because the cross hairs weren't blurred (which should be the case to a camera mounted to the plane. I'm not quite sure how the camera was installed, but it appeared to going through the eye cup. The film cut as the target moved near the center and before the drop, I suspect it was removed for final adjustments.
Maybe target confirmation or something?
- Jig
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 08-29-2000).]
-
Man I would love to get my hands on a Me-163. Haven't touched one since I played SWOTL (Ok stifle the laughs, it was many moons ago) and I thought it was a fun plane/glider to fly around and take out bombers with. Imagine rocketing (literally, hehe) up at 16,000 feet a min, taking a whopping 2 minutes to reach a dweeb strato, make your passes and then glide back to base for some more fuel. I can see the dweeb whines already, "Get rid of this plane, its wrecking our ruining of other peoples games....."
(Sniffs) Ahhhhh.....I can smell the T-Stoff and C-Stoff burning through that Walther HWK 509A-1/A-2 rocket motor now (mmmmmm....T- and C-Stoff)
It would be cool if ya landed it too hard and it exploded (happened in RL) or if your fuel tanks leaked (happened also, tanks right there in the cockpit) and disolved you in your cockpit seat (and once again there are documented cases of that, pilots had to wear a special suit, and sometimes that didn't even help). But seriously, it would be a cool aircraft to buff-bust in. Any other takers?
------------------
Meine Schwester hat keine kartoffel salat? Du bist eine lustige Buba!!!
[This message has been edited by Mattibaby80 (edited 08-29-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Mattibaby80 (edited 08-29-2000).]