Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on October 12, 2004, 11:08:11 PM
-
On a thred that seems to have dissapeared HT said somethinig to the effect that if anyone could say why these planes couldnt divebomb he'd look into fixing it.
Ok I have the reason.
Quite obvious really.
From a flight standpoint perhaps they could do such manuvers.. But they wouldnt.
Yanno why?
The Crew/Gunners.
You would probably end up getting half the crew killed or at least Seriously injured taking the heavies into near vertical dives then climbouts.
even teathered in they would be flung back and forth like one of those rubber balls attached to a paddle by elastic band. not to mention that anything not nailed down would go flying around as well.
This would limit the angle that these planes would be able to safely dive in at.
theres your reason.
-
Nothing like a can of .50 hittin ya upside the head to put ya to sleep (:
-
Well, fully laden Lancasters would do a corkscew manuver that involved a sharp dive, turn and climb to shake night fighter's off their tail.
Tail gunner would see the enemy fighter (hopefully) and yell something like "Fighter, corkscrew port!" and the pilot would immediately do so.
But you're right about the sustained vertical manuvers I think.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Well, fully laden Lancasters would do a corkscew manuver that involved a sharp dive, turn and climb to shake night fighter's off their tail.
Tail gunner would see the enemy fighter (hopefully) and yell something like "Fighter, corkscrew port!" and the pilot would immediately do so.
But you're right about the sustained vertical manuvers I think.
this suddenly occured to me when I was chasing down a 17 who had a gunner firing on me and he suddenly dove near vertical and dropped on the base then pulled out and went near vertical up and around.
It suddenly dawned on me what would be going on on the inside of the plane during such a manuver. especially for the waist gunners
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
It suddenly dawned on me what would be going on on the inside of the plane during such a manuver. especially for the waist gunners
They'd be planning on ambushing the pilots behind the mess and beating the crap out of them?
-
agree dread..good point..but..the bomer still physiallcy could..so....How about it kilsl the gunners when you dive liek that?...but that wont stop suciced cv dweebs
I dont know
-
would the bombs successfully leave the bomb bay in a steep dive?
I guess it really depends on the way they are held in the bomb bay. If they are stacked or have metal bars between them they might hit something on the way out.
I belive the design of bomb bays count on gravity to pull the bomb out of the plane, approximatly perpendicular. they were not sprang out (did they?).
consider a pure vertical dive - the bombs would not even leave the plane.
In that case, the actuall clean release of the bomb might not work in a steep dive.
Bozon
-
look at the pictures of the B24 bomb bay in this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132502
1. the bombs are stacked and are placed well inside the plane.
2. They have nothing to pull them out of the bay but gravity.
3. They are very crowded from the sides - any release in a bank will make bombs hit the side of the bomb bay. any release in a dive of more than 20-30 degrees will make bombs hit the front of the bay.
Do not allow bomb release in dives beyond a certain angle and a certain bank, or make the bombs dud since they would hit the plane and spin out of control !
Bozon
-
So......you're in your B17 flying along, go into a 90 degree straight down dive......hit the bomb release and.......a 500lber hits the pilot in the back of the head on it's way out through the windscreen followed by the radio operator who was on his way to the cheek gun at the time.
Yeah, they did that all the time during the war.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Pyro was looking for data related to the angles of dive that ac could release from................
I saw pictures but no data.............
However some assumptions can be safely made.........
lets take a B17..........
Answer the following with No, Unlikely, Maybe, Yes
could it............
release in a 90 degree dive?
release in a 67 degree dive?
release in a 45 degree dive?
release in a 22 degree dive?
release in a 90 degree bank?
release in a 67 degree bank?
release in a 45 degree bank?
release in a 22 degree bank?
HTC can take informed views on this and make a model for each ac. They can modify the limiting angle as data becomes available.
Basically starting at some angle between "Unlikely" and "Maybe".
Right now releasing at any angle of bank or dive is also IMO erronious. Avoiding the creation of a smaller error is not a reason for not resolving a larger one.
-
I'd say informed views weren't needed...just some simple trigonometry and a little physics. How far do the bombs drop from the top of the bomb bay to exit and how far forward do they move at a given angle. I have seen the bays of B-17s, B-24s and B-25s loaded with bomb mock-ups and suspect the amount of forward movement possible is not much and therefore the allowable angle of drop is equally small.
Angle of drop
..../..|
.../...|
../....|
./.....| Bomb Bay Depth
/......|
<----|
Forward
Movement
-
Originally posted by xHaMmeRx
I'd say informed views weren't needed...just some simple trigonometry and a little physics.
Not to mention a little common sence
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
agree dread..good point..but..the bomer still physiallcy could..so....How about it kilsl the gunners when you dive liek that?...but that wont stop suciced cv dweebs
I dont know
I'd go for that,
You could still dive the heavy but there would be a price to pay. a tradeoff.
You sacrifice your gunners in the process
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Pyro was looking for data related to the angles of dive that ac could release from................
Yes but that would also have to be assuming the pilot and Co Pilot were the only ones on the plane other then the bombs.
Im sure one of the reasons they didnt use the heavies in a DB capacity would be the crew.
Im sure they Taking the crew into account would at the very least be a minor consideration.
-
informed views can be based upon all of the following......
crew considerations
trigonometry
historical record
hard data
no source need be ignored
-
I think that the inability of large bomber's structures to take such dives without incurring so much stress damage as to write off the airframe and the inability to drop bombs out of the bomb bay at steep angles were the primary reasons for the absence of such tactics.
The gunners were strapped in. Such dives did occur unintentionally and they did not kill the gunners if the pilot managed to pull out. There was an account of a B-24 that had such an accident in a recent thread.
The German Ju88 medium bomber was equipped as a dive bomber and so was the He177 heavy bomber, at least technically.
I think the best way to be looking at this is from a structural and physical limitations perspective, not a gunner comfort perspective.
-
Why is it that I think that if the bombs hit anything if released during a dive, it would be the back of the bomb bay and not the front?
Also, not saying that you have not seen this, but in my 2 years here, I have yet to see heavy bombers go vertical. I have seen them going in to a 20 maybe 30 degree angle to pick up speed before the drop, but not 90 degrees.
Unless you are at really high alt, I dont think a 17 has the time to go into a 90 degree dive, release bombs, and then pull out. So, are we really talking about 90 degree dives or are we upset that we could not get to the bombers on time?
-
Well I can't believe I'm the only one to see B17, etc actually looping in here.
Yes it was possible, in fact I remember I read about it somewhere, drawback - required immediate landing due to deformed wings from the 'g' forces.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
.
The gunners were strapped in. Such dives did occur unintentionally and they did not kill the gunners if the pilot managed to pull out. There was an account of a B-24 that had such an accident in a recent thread.
The German Ju88 medium bomber was equipped as a dive bomber and so was the He177 heavy bomber, at least technically.
Keywords "unintentionally" and "Accident"
Somehow I dont think the pilots would want to do it intentionally and I think we can be pretty sure the crew wouldnt be real happy about it if they did strappped in or not.
I have no problems whatsoever with planes that were designed to be able too divebomb, divebombing.
I dont even have a problem with the heavies going into a "slight" dive. But 45+ degrees is a bit much
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Also, not saying that you have not seen this, but in my 2 years here, I have yet to see heavy bombers go vertical. I have seen them going in to a 20 maybe 30 degree angle to pick up speed before the drop, but not 90 degrees.
Unless you are at really high alt, I dont think a 17 has the time to go into a 90 degree dive, release bombs, and then pull out. So, are we really talking about 90 degree dives or are we upset that we could not get to the bombers on time?
No I havent seen 90 degres eatiher but I've certainly seenconsiderably more then 45 easy.
Might even be able to post a screen shot of it If I canfigure out how to take screenshots with the current film format.
And can find the film.
and this was from less then 10K
-
DREDIOCK - I have seen Lancs, B17 and B26 performing loops in here.
-
Just a thought, you might contact someone here and ask if they had any directives during the war why not to dive bomb with a B17.
http://www.stelzriede.com/warstory.htm#top
-
http://457thbombgroup.org/New/Recollections/Anecdotes/dive.html
Dive Bombing in a B-17
There were times during our tour of duty when we managed to have some fun, even though it was not always approved by the field commander. I don't remember what date or time of year this was but it was a time of very bad weather in England in 1944.
We had prepared for a mission and had taken off with a full load of 500 pound bombs. After only a few of the Group's planes were airborn there was a mission recall. This meant that the mission was scrubbed, probably because of very bad weather over Germany. We were told via radio that we were to dispose of our bombs and return to our field.
Our Group's procedure for disposing of our bombs was to arm them and drop them in an area of the North Sea that cuts into the side of England known as "The Wash". The Wash was perhaps a hundred miles Northwest of Glatton airfield. The other primary rule for bomb disposal was to be sure that the visibility was good. We must also be out of site of land, and we were to drop our bombs only when we were sure no English fishing vessels or military boats were anywhere near the area.
We proceeded to the Wash only to find that there was a low thin cover of clouds whose top was perhaps 400 feet above the water and extending as far as we could see. There was never any thought of returning to the field with the bombs. Landing with a load of bombs and full gas tanks was too risky.
What to do?
We decided to go down to determine how low the cloud layer actually was. We made a slow instrument descent through the clouds. When we broke through at about 200 feet we found the visibility to be clear and we could readily see for a considerable distance over the water . A suggestion from our bombardier (Joel Lester) and with gleeful agreement from the rest of the crew, we decided that we would rise above the cloud layer, which was only a few hundred feet thick, arm a bomb, then dive down through the cloud layer, level off, observe that no ships were in the area, quickly release one bomb, pull up as quickly as possible and get as much distance between us and the bomb before it exploded.
We did not know how close we could be to an exploding 500 pound bomb without sustaining damage.
We first made a dry run or two before Joel finally armed one of the bombs. Then, down we went. We started at about 1000 ft altitude and dove down with engines at full throttle, broke through the clouds, "bombs away" came over the intercom from Joel, and up we went as fast as a B-17 could climb at full throttle. Just before we broke out of the cloud layer we heard the bomb explode with a loud 'WOOMMP'. Hearing the bomb explode surprised me since I had never experienced that before.
A check of the crew and the plane determined that there was no sign of damage and no one in the crew observed the bomb exploding through the clouds. We continued this bombing, one at a time, until we had exhausted our supply of bombs. Everyone seemed to enjoy this adventure and I kinda wished that we could do this with some of the Group's targets in Germany. Bad, bad, bad idea. This may be the only B-17 in the 8th Air Force to practice dive bombing.
As we returned to our home field there was much chatter on the intercom about the incident and the fun we had had dive bombing in a B-17G.
Willard (Hap) Reese
-
To start off, I know they used to have 262s that were used as bombers. They used to pack A6ms and B5Ns with high explosives an crash them into boats. I even heard they took Fw190s and attached Ju88s stuffed with explosives and dropped the Mistle on a target. Point? Forget all this I heard they did, and sometimes they did crap and realize what the primary use of a type of plane was. B17s, B24s and Lancasters were used PRIMARILY as high alt level bombers. Simple solution? Minimum 10k alt and on auto-pilot for bombs to arm.
Side note, dive bombing with with dive bombers in formations is just as big a joke. While I will not argue that there were dive-bombers that bombed targets in groups, the catch was EACH plane was subject to it's OWN aim, judgement and skill. In AH2 all 3 bombers do exactly what the lead one does. LAME!
-
Originally posted by bustr
...arm a bomb, then dive down through the cloud layer, level off, observe that no ships were in the area, quickly release one bomb, pull up as quickly as possible...
Wasn't really dive bombing but low level bombing, bombs were released in level flight.
-
Hey gimmie a break. It was the closest thing I could find on the Internet. Why not contact the 8th Airforce groups web site and ask them????
http://www.8thafhs.org/
-
Here is the URL to the general disscusion board for the Mighty 8th. Personaly I'd feel like a fool asking these men a question like this for an Internet game. They played the game for real and survived. I have family that did not survive that war.
http://www.8thafhs.org/messagebrd/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=551a3ce466b17cda42c45188410a87fe
-
I think there is no way a bomber can drop a bomb safely other than nearly level. If you look at the pictures I posted in the thread above (posted by bozon), it is clear that if the wings were not level, the bombs in the upper portion of the bomb bay would not clear the doors and would smash against the plane.
If a bomber was in a dive, the bombs would go straight into the floor and either explode or riccochet out and who knows where they would land.
I have no data to back this up, but its just an assumption I made on what I know.
-
I think y'all are ignoring SEVERAL key factors here...
Namely centripetal, centrifugal, and gravitational forces.
No matter WHAT the bank, a bomb will fly straigt out of the bomb bay due to centrifugal forces on the bomb and centripetal forces on the aircraft (due to lift generated by the wings) so nix that idea.
Also consider that these bombs are heavy and drop in a split second. Yes a plane is angled down. If the bomb were to fall straight to earth it might hit the front of the bomb bay. But you then ignore forces of gravity and inertia, which would make the bomb separate from the fuselage, along a tangent from the bomber's vector, falling safely away from the plane (back to centripetal/centrifugal forces) unless the plane was in perfect zero G freefall, in which case it would knock around inside the bomb bay. I doubt you'd get such an instance except for a 90 degree vertical dive (which is terminal anyways).
No I don't like dweebs that do this crap. But stop saying "it's impossible!" when it's really, in fact, possible. Argue against it for other reasons. Don't change the laws of physics to suit yerselves.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No matter WHAT the bank, a bomb will fly straigt out of the bomb bay due to centrifugal forces on the bomb and centripetal forces on the aircraft (due to lift generated by the wings) so nix that idea.
If that were true, Stukas and other dive-bombers wouldn't have needed the bomb rack that "threw" the bomb out to help miss the propeller arc. Also, there will be no centrifical force at 1 G.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I think y'all are ignoring SEVERAL key factors here...
Namely centripetal, centrifugal, and gravitational forces.
No matter WHAT the bank, a bomb will fly straigt out of the bomb bay due to centrifugal forces on the bomb and centripetal forces on the aircraft (due to lift generated by the wings) so nix that idea.
...
Don't change the laws of physics to suit yerselves.
No centrifugal forces act on the plane in a dive. More than that - if you point your nose at a spot on the ground and hold it there, you are producing less than 1G. The acceleration of the bomb in the direction out of the bomb bay will be:
g*cos(dive angle) = G * g
while it's acceleration forward inside the bay will be:
g*sin(dive angle) - a
where "a" is the forward acceleration of the plane.
so, the bomb will leave the bay slower and move inside more as you steepen the dive angle. The slow release of the bomb from air speed of 0 (inside the bay) to air speed of a couple hundred mph (at the bay door, and not to mention turbulance) will de-stabilize it completly and might even throw it back in.
In the famous dive bombing of the Lancs with the 7 ton earthquake bombs, the bomb was hanged right at the doorway (I vaugly remember it was partially outside) and was heavy enough not to be flung by the wind before it clears the door.
a good, clean release of a bomb is not such a trivial issue. I've seen a test film of a bomb released from an F-18 in a shallow dive (20-30 deg). The bomb released from the wing, sunk about 1 meter below the plane and started to develop a precession - this caused it to slow and be flung back and up, relative to the plane, still on the dive, and it hit the elevator of the plane.
Bozon
-
I fly 17's a lot, and the only thing that rips wings is passin 330 or so, or serious G's from a slightly slower pullout---barrel rolls, etc, not a problem in here (i dont divebomb tho...THATS dweeby;)
-
I'm in complete agreement with a max angle on the bomb drop - but start messing with the min drop height (for historic reasons) and I'm afraid I will have to insist that all fighter engagements take place over 15K. ;)
-
Originally posted by Darkish
I'm in complete agreement with a max angle on the bomb drop - but start messing with the min drop height (for historic reasons) and I'm afraid I will have to insist that all fighter engagements take place over 15K. ;)
There were a multitude of fighter engagements on the deck in all theaters.
There were a multitude of medium bomber missions at very low altitude in all theaters.
There were very few heavy bomber missions at very low altitude.
Like you, my biggest problem with the way the heavies are used now is the dive-bombing. I believe in the current multi-engine plane set, only the Ju-88 was designed to have the capability to dive bomb.
I can live with the low-level bombing but I believe that level bombers should have to a) be level when dropping and b) have someone in the bombardier's position looking through the bomb-sight when dropping.
-
First of all SOMEBODY said that a BANKING PLANE (****NOT**** ****A**** ****DIVING**** ****PLANE****) would probably have the bombs fall through the side of the plane.
THIS WAS TO CORRECT THAT. NOT RELATED TO DIVE BOMBING!!!!!!!
And the trapeze on many dive bombers was because it WAS literally in a near vertical dive when the bombs were released. There was a chance that the bomb would hit the prop, but I believe it was also to add more speed to the bomb as well (to help ensure accuracy is my bet). In a near VERTICAL yeah the bomb is going to follow the path of the plane, both are headed straight down, no tangets needed. So if a stupid pilot backs off the throttle after release, WHAM there goes the prop (or BOOM there goes the plane? I'm not sure which).
-
Originally posted by bozon
In the famous dive bombing of the Lancs with the 7 ton earthquake bombs, the bomb was hanged right at the doorway (I vaugly remember it was partially outside) and was heavy enough not to be flung by the wind before it clears the door.
Bozon
The tall boy was usually dropped from 18,000 feet above target(as was the Grand slam) in order to gain the terminal velocity and degree of spin required to bury it prior to detonation.
The tall boy was contained fully within the bomb bay which had special bulged doors to suit it. 400/500 dropped
The grand slam was slung under the Lanc. 40/50 dropped
9 squadron became specialists in dropping Tallboys from a shallow dive however the destructive power of the tall boy was hampered when it was not able to bury its self first.
Given that. I would love to see tallboys added to AH provided the 18K + model was used to proscribe its effectiveness.
-
Originally posted by xHaMmeRx
If that were true, Stukas and other dive-bombers wouldn't have needed the bomb rack that "threw" the bomb out to help miss the propeller arc. Also, there will be no centrifical force at 1 G.
Wrong. If the plane is in a 30 to 45 degree bank, the centripetal force is pulling the plane into the turn (that is why you bank to turn, the lift pulls you into the turn) and the centrifugal force on a released bomb makes it fly away from the plan (it does not have the lift pulling it in to the turn.
So even at 1G the forces are still there. They're just acting along a different plane
-
I always assumed the Stuka lowered its bomb frame prior to release..........
-
Neg, it was a gravity fed device that swung the bomb out and in front of the plane when the release was triggered. Same on the SBD, and one or more of the IJN planes as well (B5N or D3A1 don't remember much about IJN planes)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Wrong. If the plane is in a 30 to 45 degree bank, the centripetal force is pulling the plane into the turn (that is why you bank to turn, the lift pulls you into the turn) and the centrifugal force on a released bomb makes it fly away from the plan (it does not have the lift pulling it in to the turn.
So even at 1G the forces are still there. They're just acting along a different plane
I think you over estimate the amount of force that would be exerted during a bank. Ride in the back of a C-130 doing NOE before a jump sometime. When the plane banks, you fall to the side. I agree there will be some force pushing out and away, but gravity wins that fight.
No matter how much centrifical force is exerted, gravity still exerts a force straight down, causing the bomb to move that way in addition to any other direction. It would be impossible for it to move straight out unless the laws of physics have been changed.
-
Wonder if any of this will get addressed on 2.01 given that another 4-engine divel bomber is being added.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Wonder if any of this will get addressed on 2.01 given that another 4-engine divel bomber is being added.
I'll actually be a bit surprised if some changes are not made in v2.01. They may not have enough effect, but I'll bet we see some modifications in v2.01.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I'll actually be a bit surprised if some changes are not made in v2.01. They may not have enough effect, but I'll bet we see some modifications in v2.01.
Here's hoping.
I actually don't have much as much problem with the tactic save for the use of formations. If 17's and Lancs and 24's were trying this low-level stuff as solo ships, then it'd be a lot less of an issue. But the abuse of the formations really screws up the MA and I'm 99.99% sure that's not the use HT put them in for.
-
Wrong. If the plane is in a 30 to 45 degree bank, the centripetal force is pulling the plane into the turn (that is why you bank to turn, the lift pulls you into the turn) and the centrifugal force on a released bomb makes it fly away from the plan (it does not have the lift pulling it in to the turn.
banking is not the same as turning. The point was that if you dive bomb (nose is constantly pointing at the same spot on the ground) but the wing line is not parallel to the horizon, you might have problems releasing the bombs cleanly. This means that you have a banking limit as well as dive angle limit to the release.
Bozon
-
-From DoK-
Here's hoping.
I actually don't have much as much problem with the tactic save for the use of formations. If 17's and Lancs and 24's were trying this low-level stuff as solo ships, then it'd be a lot less of an issue. But the abuse of the formations really screws up the MA and I'm 99.99% sure that's not the use HT put them in for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any chance of getting a perk cost assigned to choosing to fly your bomber as a formation? Or would that be the swan song of buff operations ever in AH??????:)
Seems the current gunnery model has made killing buffs a wee tad hazzardous.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Any chance of getting a perk cost assigned to choosing to fly your bomber as a formation? Or would that be the swan song of buff operations ever in AH??????:)
Seems the current gunnery model has made killing buffs a wee tad hazzardous.
I stopped bothering with attacking inbound bombers unless it was close to base and I had something with 4 20mm's. Anything else it was a waste of the time I spent to get where I was.
Last time I looked I saw all sides using Lancs and 17's this way - also for base defense ack-wagon formations. It's just stoopidly - I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if formations were turned off this stuff would tail off dramatically.
-
A small cost of 3-5 for a formation might work. If you are an average buff pilot it should be easy to keep your points up. The current reactions by the player base to changes like this would lead me to hesitate. A few years ago it may well have fostered a positive rivelry and espri de cor. Now I'm not sure what some players are using for brain fuel.:)
-
Originally posted by bustr
A small cost of 3-5 for a formation might work. If you are an average buff pilot it should be easy to keep your points up. The current reactions by the player base to changes like this would lead me to hesitate. A few years ago it may well have fostered a positive rivelry and espri de cor. Now I'm not sure what some players are using for brain fuel.:)
Well I actually overheard folks going on a NOE Lanc training mission last time I was on. Which more or less says it all.
-
Krusty I'm curious about something. Why is it even modern fighter/bombers rely on a charge to seperate the weapon from the airframe?
No bomb bays here all external stores but they still require an explosive to force them away from the airframe.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No matter WHAT the bank, a bomb will fly straigt out of the bomb bay due to centrifugal forces on the bomb and centripetal forces on the aircraft (due to lift generated by the wings) so nix that idea.
While I won't argue your entire post, you are slightly off here. Only with pulling elevator can you credit centrifugal force with pulling the bombs out of the bomb bay. Imagine the bomber inverted, the bombs would sit in the bay until you pulled elevator (up) and the forces pulled the bombs clear.
In level flight, there is no centrifugal force. You can ignore the fact the plane is even flying (imagine the wings supported on posts).
So, what does it mean? It means that: 1. Gravity pulls the bombs clear 2. If the bomb can't get out due to interference (high angle of attack) then you have to pull up elevator to get the bombs to clear the bomb bay.
There is a maximum angle of attack for the bombs to clear on their own. (ie, without UP elevator)
-
"No matter WHAT the bank, a bomb will fly straigt out of the bomb bay due to centrifugal forces on the bomb and centripetal forces on the aircraft (due to lift generated by the wings) so nix that idea.
"
I am not an mechanical or aeronautical engineer. But bomb shackels are rated for certain weights and loads. They work within those parameters. Increasing Gs doubles the weight on the shackle right? Was the shackle in a Lanc rated for the 3000 pound load that a 1000 pound bomb exerts at 3 gs? What about the 12000 pound load that a 4k bomb exerts under the same condition. Will the shackle release properly with that load on it? In a bomber with stacked bombs like the B17 will they all release?
Assuming yes is silly. The engineering needed to make it work at 3000 pounds at 3gs inverted is much much more then to drop them level at 1g.
They were made to work under certain conditions. Assuming that they would work under other conditions is what has led to the employment of bombers we see in AH2.
We do know that designing a heavy bomber that can also dive bomb was an engineering night mare that helped ruin the He177. Where the Germans just dumb and any heavy can dive bomb? Or is it just the pull out that is the engineering issue?
-
I believe you can release bombs when inverted in AH.......given this I assume there is some point where the model departs from reality in this respect.............
There was a reason why dive bombing large formations was impractical.....(or else it would have been more common practice)...I would urge that it be found and modelled.
It may be just a part of a whole bigger requirement..............
-
hmmbom shackle strengths..goo dpoint pong
woudl be funny as hell to see the dive bomn suiside cv dweebs have the boms tear thru there bombay doors
-
I read the story on "dive bombing" buffs.
They were diving......600 feet! from 1000 to 400 ft.That is not a dive. that is like letting your plane drift down. They probably never even approached a 20 degree dive angle. The highest g load on the aircraft was at the pull up. Which was probably no more then any fast pull up. The bombs were droped at 1g.....
-
Yeah ... I made the same point about the shackles a couple months ago. Looking at some of the pictures, some of the shackle assemblies look like they pivot. So on negative G's the bombs would swing up and slam against the structure member the shackle is attached to. That can't be good for the ole warranty.