Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Simaril on October 27, 2004, 07:24:29 AM
-
I was surfing for tech data on B-17, and came across a single page from the original Technical Orders that accompanied the more commonly known pilot manuals. On it were 2 paragraphs headed "Dives". To quote:
The structural factors limiting the dive speed to 305 mph are the engine ring cowl strength, the wing leading edge de-icer boot strength, the pilot compartment winshield and enclosure strength, and the critical flutter speed. The engine ring cowl has been designed to wthstand 420 mph. Windshield and pilot compartment have ample margin at 305 mph. The wing leading edge de-icer boots begin to rise slightly form the wing at 305 mph, and any excessive additional speed would probably lift the upper portion of the boot well abovve the wing surface and allow it to flap severly against the leading edge, thus causing a structural failure.
Structural failure at the wing leading edge is generally considered a bad thing.
Secondly, the next paragraph places a great deal of emphasis on the elevator trim tabs in dives, especially when recovering. I dont have time to type it out (and I cant find my OCR program this am -- grrr), but this passage strongly implies that elevator tolerances are limiting factors when pulling out even from dives limited to 305 mph or less. And B-17s were designed with greater strength at teh cost of carry capacity. One wonders how less robust frames could ahve tolerated dives. (And I'd just love to see what that slender Davis wing would do at dive recovery G loads.....)
I never would have expected that wing de-icer boots would be the weak link for diving B17s, but you can bet on every aircraft such a weak link exists. I'd suspect that most are limited by elevator G tolerances if nothing else.
Bottom line -- buffs were designed for level bombing. In order to maximize payload, range, and effectiveness the competent aeronautical engineers WOULD NOT include structural strengths to also permit dive bombing. It would be stupid to trade off load capacity to get structural strength for a silly mission like dive bombing buffs -- and there WAS a war on.
Conclusions:
1. Airframes designed for level bombing shuld not be permitted to tolerate high G maneuvers like dive bombing and pull outs.
2. Based on data presented, B-17s should have wing leading edge structural failure at 310- 325 mph.
-
interesting.
What are the "de-icer boots" anyway? Something an eskimo would wear for a warm and fuzzy feeling in their feet?
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
interesting.
What are the "de-icer boots" anyway? Something an eskimo would wear for a warm and fuzzy feeling in their feet?
Bozon
IIRC, On a B-17 there were rubberized sheeths that were along the leading edges of the wings... they routed warmed air thru them. The heat plus the expansion (liking softly blowing up a balloon) would shed the ice.
Think that is how they worked.... but it is very early in the morning...
-
Nice job Simaril, nice effort. Now...Is anything going to be done about this..?
-
Due to AH not modeling High Altitude lack of oxygen and heat (by way of pilot oxygen systems not modeled and wing icing, etc. not modeled) the B17s have had their wing deicing boots removed, so no high speed effect is induced.
This is the same reason why we see planes with no O2 systems flying at 20K+
-
But, you'd still think a B17 should be able to be modelled to not pull out after 400 mph. Or find some way to inflict damage when reaching speeds past 350 mph. Seems legit. I mean, they can model other planes to compress at certain speeds, why not have the 17's and other bombers "compress" at certain speeds. This may stop the dive bombing and also create more of a realistic descend time when landing instead of just plummitting to the earth and then pull out at 1k just before the runway.
-
Since most bombers fly at 100ft-3000ft, dive speed and ice don't seem like much of an issue :)
-
no argument with eliminating dive bombing with the heavy's.
I seem to remember reading that de-icer boots ended up getting removed after flak damage instead of repaired due to short supply and short turn around times required for the next missions.
-
I agree, something really needs to be done to limit dives in buffs and require level flight to release bombs.
Bazi
-
What some other guy said,,,,,and very simple fix
Being only able to drop eggs from Norden Bombsite position
for Lanc, B17,B24,B26 and Ki-67
-
The B-17 has been messed with too much as it is. With no crew, guns,bombing calibrations, ect.
-
Originally posted by SKBG Seadog
The B-17 has been messed with too much as it is. With no crew, guns,bombing calibrations, ect.
Bombing calibrations are "messing" wth the B17 to you... I guess yiu want the realisdtic laser guided old AH bombs just lier they had back in the real war...
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I'm curious what the "G" rating for a B-17 (or other buff) is. I know that bob hoover used to do acrobatics in a twin with a "utility" rating (think that is a 3.2G limit). Anyway I've never seen anyone pop the wings off a buff recovering from a dive like you do in a pony or or tempest 262 etc. I'd just be a realistic G limiter and plane breaks up above that like A-26 in did in AW....
-
I've popped the wings off a B-26 while dogfighting a time or two... :D
-
I wanna see a pic of VWE doin a loop in his spook plane, hehe.:)
-
What if bomb bay doors are made openable only while autopilot is engaged?
-
Why dive bomb in a B17 when the Ju88 is designed for it AND carries more ordnance?
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Due to AH not modeling High Altitude lack of oxygen and heat (by way of pilot oxygen systems not modeled and wing icing, etc. not modeled) the B17s have had their wing deicing boots removed, so no high speed effect is induced.
This is the same reason why we see planes with no O2 systems flying at 20K+
Yeeaaah Zombies in 20k+ Yaks rule AH :D
-
I commented about structural limits in another thread a couple weeks ago. As it turns out, structural limits have not been working correctly and that hasn't helped matters.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Why dive bomb in a B17 when the Ju88 is designed for it AND carries more ordnance?
Unfortunately, the JU88 is slower and has ineffective defensive armament.
-
Let them do it... DONT MAKE ANY MORE STUPID THINGS LIKE THE GEAR WONT GO DOWN AT CERTAIN SPEED. MAKE BOMBERS FLY APART IF THEY DIVE. Not not be able to dive bomb. NO stupid flap and gear retention speed limits stuff. On a real bomber they could drop bombs when they wanted pshh . GV tards
-
who cares what bombers do?
I mean really. Do you lose sleep over it? If you do I'm sorry for you.
-
Thx for the update Pyro. You guys never give up and that's cool.
-
My father-in-law was in the gunnery training command in WWII. In the beginning of the war he would make mock attacks in AT 6s on B-17s. The gunners in the B-17 would “shoot” gun cameras at his plane; the film would be developed after landing.
At the end of a mission the B-17 pilot (a good pal of his) informed him that his gunners were out of film and that he could head back to base. Bill wheeled his T-6 over and spiral dove at about 45 degrees, power-off to dump his altitude. After a few turns he looked back for some reason. Right on his six, turning inside him at a very steep angle was the B-17 (with a full crew aboard).
B-17s could dive.
eskimo
-
Quite interesting Eskimo.
My Father in laws cousin was the bombadier on the "Enola Gay(I think I spelled it right)," Major Thomas M. Ferebee and he commented befor he died that the B-29 could dive bomb somewhat but was not recommended for it was a very high alt bomber. All of the bombers could dive boomb in one form or another just you had to fly within its limits.
-
Im sure the "dive bombing" they are talking about is alot more realistic than a "dive bomb" in AH2. Im assuming they would be talking about a quick dive, release and pull out. Dive boming in AH2 is literally putting your plane into a -60 degree angle. I dont think many B17's were able to surpass that for a good 30 seconds and let the plane pull itself out.
-
w00t! HT has the "evidence" that he was asking for. wtg!
bye bye divebombing heavies. :)
-
Yeah 60 degree dives in a heavy...... That plane ain't recovering from that. Gravity takes its grasp on the plane......:eek:
The flight restrictions on the heavies do need to be tightened up. Stalling them and diving down is one thing not a very good chance of surviving a real flight doing that but about 60% with a very experienced pilot.:eek:
-
Just wondering. Has there ever been a case of the pilot being able to drop bombs from a 17 instead of the bombadier?
Was it even possible?
If not the obvious solution is simple. Dont allow bombs to be dropped cept from the bombadiers position.
Then nobody would have to worry about structurable limits working correctly
If you cant fire your forward guns from the pilots position then you shouldnt be able to drop bombs either
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Right on his six, turning inside him at a very steep angle was the B-17 (with a full crew aboard).
B-17s could dive.
eskimo
Yeah, maybe a B17 without an extra 6000 pounds of bombs and 1000+ pounds of real guns and ammo, and who knows what else that was stripped out of a training B17 (like extra armor plate, etc)
That story may be true, but the B17s we are talking about are equipped for combat, not training.
-
anyway... what about lancs?
-
A couple of comments:
1) Could the pilot of a B-17 drop the bombs? Yes, the pilot had an emergency salvo switch to lose the bombs if the bombardier was wounded or killed. He had no sighting device to aim anything.
2) During WWII, they made a distinction between "Dive" bombing and "Glide" bombing. Both involved dives but true dive bombing was done at an angle greater than 60 degrees. Anything below that angle was referred to as glide bombing unless it was "skip" bombing where the bomb was "skipped" off the water or the ground (not modeled in AH but used extensively by B-25s against Jap shipping in the Pacific).
3)The bomb load of a B-17 was rated at 8,000 lbs. Not only could it be carried internally but early models also had one hardpoint under each wing to carry the 4,000 block buster which did not fit in the bomb bay. If fitted with these special external racks, maximum normal short-range bomb load could go as high as 17,600 lbs. Now a full crew is one thing at about 2,000 lbs max but if you add four to eight times that much in bombs, then the fuel and then the ammo for all thirteen guns....well I doubt you'd be doing 90 degree banking turns or pulling out of steep dives in one piece. Also, the ordinance was connected by shackles that were rated for specific weights, I don't know if they could take the apparent weight of a G loaded 1,000 or 2,000 lb bomb at more than a couple of G's.
Just some random thoughts.
-
ccvi Why dive bomb in a B17 when the Ju88 is designed for it AND carries more ordnance?
ummm when did the ju88 get 6000lbs of ord?
-
seems simple to me. Put in a dive angle limiter. No Bomb release if above/below such and such angle. This would solve all the problems since low level bombing was not only a tactic employed but there is no reason you shouldnt fly buffs NOE. Or are you guys saying that NOE is fine just not for buffs? cause that would be ridiculous. I think almost everyone is against dive bombing buffs but NOE carpet bombing is not dive bombing. If you can defend your base against some 500ft-1000ft bombers then maybe you dont deserve the base...
-
Originally posted by WarLover
A couple of comments:
1) Could the pilot of a B-17 drop the bombs? Yes, the pilot had an emergency salvo switch to lose the bombs if the bombardier was wounded or killed. He had no sighting device to aim anything.
In the latter part of the war in the ETO they didn't even have bombsites or bombardiers in all the B17s. They only carried them in several of the lead ships. The following planes dropped when the lead ship dropped. Whether this was done by another member of the crew or if by the pilot I do not know.... but it wasn't by a card carrying bombardier.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
seems simple to me. Put in a dive angle limiter. No Bomb release if above/below such and such angle. This would solve all the problems since low level bombing was not only a tactic employed but there is no reason you shouldnt fly buffs NOE. Or are you guys saying that NOE is fine just not for buffs? cause that would be ridiculous. I think almost everyone is against dive bombing buffs but NOE carpet bombing is not dive bombing. If you can defend your base against some 500ft-1000ft bombers then maybe you dont deserve the base... [/QUOTE
Do we have any historical examples of NOE bombing where they dropped while in formation? Ploesti (the most famous of the low level runs) had planes straggling in all over the place. If they want to do the low level stuff with regularity, why not get rid of the formation option. Put the buffs back to single ships. If someone needs a formation require the other planes to be flown in the formation.. not drones.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
ccvi Why dive bomb in a B17 when the Ju88 is designed for it AND carries more ordnance?
ummm when did the ju88 get 6000lbs of ord?
Ju-88 doesn't carry 6,000 lbs of bombs...it carries 6,600 lbs.
-
I believe that late in the war the bombing was done by a crew member called (no kidding) the "togglier" (sp?). This crew member was responsible for opening the bomb bay and dropping the bombs when the lead ship dropped. He also manned the nose guns.
Lead ships still had fully rated bombadiers.
-
Originally posted by Falstaff
I believe that late in the war the bombing was done by a crew member called (no kidding) the "togglier" (sp?). This crew member was responsible for opening the bomb bay and dropping the bombs when the lead ship dropped. He also manned the nose guns.
Lead ships still had fully rated bombadiers.
Falstaff,
That sounds about right.... tks... I was just getting ready to dig thru some reading material I had with me on a business trip. One is all about B17s... had an article where several planes were lost because the lead plane didn't follow procedures when dropping bombs. (late war) Something about the bombs dictated that they MUST be dropped individually (not salvoed) as if they got too close to each other in the air they would explode. The lead ship failed to do this and dropped salvo and the resulting explosion downed 3 aircraft and badly damaged several more.
Also an article about to b17s colliding and getting locked together... one on top of the other. Surviving crews of both ships bailed except pilot and co-pilot of the top ship... which were struggling to keep the plane(s) level so everyone could bail. They rode the plane(s) in and actually surived... walked out of the wreckage. Ball turret gunner of the top plane was trapped alive in his turret and was killed on landing.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Yeah, maybe a B17 without an extra 6000 pounds of bombs and 1000+ pounds of real guns and ammo, and who knows what else that was stripped out of a training B17 (like extra armor plate, etc)
That story may be true, but the B17s we are talking about are equipped for combat, not training.
They didn’t carry bombs or ammo, but they did have guns, turrets and a full crew. The cameras were mounted to the guns and the gun triggers were hooked up to the cameras. I don’t think the planes were stripped. So they were certainly lighter than combat ready, but not super light.
My thoughts on dive bombing in B-17s is that the bombs would hit the forward bulkhead when released, especially the bombs in the front rack. This would probably destroy the arming generator-prop on the bomb and turn the bomb into a dud, not to mention beat up the bulkhead.
I’m sure that B-17s could “dive bomb/glide bomb” somewhat. If they started slow, or in a stall and didn’t spend too much time acquiring their target (while gaining speed). It probably wouldn’t have proved to be safe, reliable, accurate or practical, however.
On one hand, heavies in AH seam to be capable of doing much more than anything I have ever read about. On the other hand, we have little consequence for killing ourselves repeatedly while doing stupid things in AH. We can push the limits much further; in fact that’s what makes it so much fun. In WWII there would have been little value in taking great risks with valuable men and machines.
eskimo
-
wow I always used ju88s for cvs never noticed that huge bomb load.
As for the bombers one buff stands no chance against fighters. At altitude or NOE. Missions were flown so many different ways in the war lets plz not start the prove they did it. if you want some proof search for low level lancasters. yeah they got seperated and torn apart by fighters but the did reach their target I think 5 of 12 made it home. It just sounds to me like figher pilots want some fresh meat and cant handle a challenge of a set of bombers. I have personally been on both ends of getting all 3 of bombers killed on one pass. Might I suggest cannons? All types of things happen in this game that did/do not happen in RL. How many spit. la7 109 missions were there during ww2? I totally agree no dive bombing buffs but I do not agree with thinking NOE is somehow wrong. Why should I be dumb enough to fly thru your radar giving you my exact position? That to me sounds more suicidal than goin in at low alt.
just me 2 thoughts or maybe its just half of one. lol
anybody got a film/ of unacceptable dives? I would like to see what is considered a dive and how many or just low level "glide" runs
-
Originally posted by Raider179
wow I always used ju88s for cvs never noticed that huge bomb load.
As for the bombers one buff stands no chance against fighters. At altitude or NOE. Missions were flown so many different ways in the war lets plz not start the prove they did it. if you want some proof search for low level lancasters.
I am not disputing that they flew low level... but I doubt it was in tight formation. Tight formations at altitude make sense... and I think each side has a fair shot at winning.. (buffs vs fighters)
OTD... the advantage is all to the buff... unless there are a bunch of fighters guys that want to just get a face full of .50 cal while hoping for a buff kill.
As for Cannon... I am reading the Magazine Flight Journal a special issue about the B17. In one of the stories the vet telling his experiences talks about having no fighter cover and the Germans lining up outside the range of the B17s guns and shooting them with their cannons.
That doesn't work in AH... being the B17s guns outrange the cannon.
Finally, I did read a story about a damaged (one engine out) B17 flying on the deck that got bounced by 4 or 5 Me210s. Turns out the command pilot sitting in place of the copilot (this was a lead ship that had been shot out of formation) was a former fighter pilot. He told the gunners to HANG ON... and how to call out the Me210s attacks. He then (with help of the pilot following his directions) proceeded to dogfight the B17. He moved his tail gunner to the nose guns, had the ball come up and help out elsewhere... and for 20 minutes proceeded to "school" the 210s. The gunners claimed at least 2 Me210s shot down. (this was over the Baltic) The guy telling the story (the copilot who had been relegated to tail gunner and then nose) said at one point the command pilot had the plane standing on its wingtip and he saw vortexs in the water's surface. Also said the command pilot didn't seem to care about turning into the bad engine either... just flew the daylights out of the plane. Said the whole fight was 50' and down. Also described them violently skidding the aircraft with rudders to throw off the fighter's aim. Apparently they were never hit. 210s finally just gave up and went home.
The b17s ducked a flight of Fw-190s by flying below treetop level and made it out over the North Sea and back to England.
Good read.... and by the copilot's account they would never have made it back had it been just he and the regular pilot flying.