Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: FYB on May 14, 2009, 09:53:29 PM

Title: B-17 Variants
Post by: FYB on May 14, 2009, 09:53:29 PM
I don't know if its been asked for, I doubt it. But I'd like to see different B-17 variants in the game. Old never means without quality.

B-17E
and
B-17F

B-17E - 512 produced
B-17F - 3405 produced

Too many qualities, not enough energy.

Here, you can read yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17

-FYB
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: MachFly on May 14, 2009, 11:15:47 PM
not a bad idea.  :aok

but honestly I think HTC will make a B-29 before other bombers.
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: FYB on May 14, 2009, 11:35:29 PM
True... But I'd still love to see some B-17 variants.

-FYB
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: MachFly on May 14, 2009, 11:41:45 PM
I'm just wondering, what is the difference between B-17 E, F, and G? 
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: AWwrgwy on May 14, 2009, 11:42:38 PM
Why?

My "why"s would be:

For scenarios.  1943-early '44 stuff and some early Pacific stuff too.

Who needs a chin turret anyway?  Wonder what nose gun configuration they would put in it?  Probably a single .50 directly in front.

Skins. Skins. Skins.

I believe the F is maybe even a bit faster than a G.  Cleaner lines.


See?  Reasons to add aren't so hard to come up with.  Now you try it.

 :D



wrongway
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: AWwrgwy on May 14, 2009, 11:49:50 PM
I'm just wondering, what is the difference between B-17 E, F, and G? 

Quick, external and obvious version:

B-17E:  Introduced Tail gun position Upper, forward turret and lower, remote controlled turret.

B-17F:  Replaced lower turret with manned ball turret.

B-17G:  Introduced Chin turret.


wrongway
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: MachFly on May 15, 2009, 12:35:02 AM
B-17F:  Replaced lower turret with manned ball turret.

wow, i did not know B-17s existed without a ball turret
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Guppy35 on May 15, 2009, 01:19:37 AM
wow, i did not know B-17s existed without a ball turret

First combat 17s were with the RAF and they had no turrets, no tail guns, a single 30 in the nose, etc.  USAAF had some of these very early too.  The only surviving combat bird of this type is the "Swoose" a B17D being restored at the AF Museum.

Early B17Es had a remote control turret instead of a ball turret.  It was a failure and was soon replaced.  "Swamp Ghost", the oldest surviving B17E was recently pulled from a New Guiniea swamp has I believe the only surviving example of that remote turret.  More often then not they removed it and replaced it with a 50 in the opening.  E model flew the first USAAF missions from England, soon to be replaced by F models.  E's flew from Midway, the Canal,  and with the 5th AF in the Pacific early on before being replaced by F models and then the B24 as the 17 was preferred in the ETO so the PTO got 24s, which had greater range and payload too.

If there were an additional 17 added to the game I'd go with the B17F as it covers the PTO birds as well as MTO, and the ETO.  Some nice skins could come out for the F.  Given 2 17s then the E would be nice, and a mid production F with the different cheek windows for the 50s and other mods that would seperate it from the E outside of the nose glass, which would be the only external difference visually.
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Beefcake on May 15, 2009, 01:36:29 AM
Didn't the E or F version have a gun in the radio operators compartment?
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: ImMoreBetter on May 15, 2009, 01:43:06 AM
Didn't the E or F version have a gun in the radio operators compartment?

Even Gs had a mount for a gun in the radio compartment. But, it was quickly learned that the radio operator was busy enough without having to man it.
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: ImMoreBetter on May 15, 2009, 01:45:10 AM
Snap, double post. Scroll that way. v
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Guppy35 on May 15, 2009, 03:09:06 AM
Didn't the E or F version have a gun in the radio operators compartment?

The B/C/D versions without the turrets and tail guns had twin 50s in the radio room as well as twin 50s in a tub under the fuselage about the same spot the ball turret would later go.  Single 50s in larger waist windows too.  To cover the tail the pilot would have to kick rudder back and forth to let the waist gunners try and get a shot.  In desperation some crews rigged a MG with tracers in the tail after removing the tail cone that was fired by one of the waist gunners pulling a chord hooked to the trigger so they could try and scare off fighters on the tail.

The E/F/G had single 50s with the radio room hatch being removed in the E and F and early G, with later a mount in the hatch itself on the later G and finally the gun was removed and the radio man covered one of the waist guns when they went to a 9 man crew fairly late in the war.

B17Es on Midway. The one going right has the remote turret, the other has a ball turret.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Midway17s-1.jpg)

A really early in the war formation of 17s with a C/D in the mix with early Es with the remote turret.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DandE.jpg)

A B17B upgraded to C standards at the training base Hendricks Field, Sebring Florida, 1942
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/8270.jpg)

Pre-war B17Bs.  Note the waist window and the early gun blister under the fuselage.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/B17B.jpg)

I kinda like B17Bs.  Only one saw combat in the Aluetians in 42 when it was pressed into service.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/12.jpg)

RAF took B17Cs into combat on July 7, 1941 with minimal success.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/RAF17.jpg)
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Guppy35 on May 15, 2009, 03:16:01 AM
Fastest of the combat 17s and in my opinion the best looking of the bunch.  B17F with staggered/bulged cheek windows and astrodome, and a single 50 on a mount in the nose glass.  A pretty bird
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/17F.jpg)
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Karnak on May 15, 2009, 01:14:06 PM
Thanks for the pics of early 17s, Dan.
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: morfiend on May 15, 2009, 02:01:21 PM
Nice pix as usual Dan. :aok

 Dan,when did the horizontal stab get it's extention fillet?
 Looks like after "C"  but I thought it was after "D" can you clear that up for me?

  Thx.    :salute
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Baggy on May 15, 2009, 03:47:47 PM
They're mingers without that tail fillet!
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: morfiend on May 15, 2009, 03:57:00 PM
Nice pix as usual Dan. :aok

 Dan,when did the horizontal stab get it's extention fillet?
 Looks like after "C"  but I thought it was after "D" can you clear that up for me?

  Thx.    :salute


 Meant verticle stab..... had a brain fart!
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Karnak on May 15, 2009, 03:58:44 PM

 Meant verticle stab..... had a brain fart!
Notice that it isn't just an extension fillet.  They enlarged the fuselage in order to put in the tail gun and tail gun access.
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Guppy35 on May 15, 2009, 05:21:40 PM
The B17D was the last of the 'shark tails'.  The Swoose at the USAFM is the last surviving D model. E introduced the tail position, new vertical tail and tail guns.
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: TOMCAT21 on May 15, 2009, 08:45:14 PM
bring in other variants of the 17 and slight perk to the G.. say 3-10 range...
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: AWwrgwy on May 15, 2009, 09:33:36 PM
bring in other variants of the 17 and slight perk to the G.. say 3-10 range...

Why perk it?


wrongway
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: TOMCAT21 on May 15, 2009, 09:48:51 PM
dunno...only got 1 perked bomber i guess.. they perked the t34/85 slightly...
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Guppy35 on May 16, 2009, 02:05:56 AM
That would make little sense other then to put the G in the hanger as the F would be a bit faster, and the nose guns on the G just aren't that vital in the MA.  You'd still have lazer 50s in the nose of an E or F anyway.

Adding those variants would be purely for historical purposes in scenarios, snapshots or for skinning different birds. 
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: TOMCAT21 on May 16, 2009, 10:01:06 AM
i can understand what you are saying Guppy..I guess for me personally , as a whole, I dont understand why we have certain versions of some aircraft while we have multiple versions of others...if that makes any sense..I do apologize if I shifted away from the main topic.. :salute
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Guppy35 on May 16, 2009, 03:44:54 PM
i can understand what you are saying Guppy..I guess for me personally , as a whole, I dont understand why we have certain versions of some aircraft while we have multiple versions of others...if that makes any sense..I do apologize if I shifted away from the main topic.. :salute

I'm all for more versions, just not perking the 17G.  HIstorically in the Pacific you'd have seen E's mixed with F's for a time in 42.  In the ETO and MTO you'd have seen mixed formations of F's and G's in late 43-early 44.  The skins possible would go up and the scenario historical accuracy would go up as well, which for us immersion fans is the only way to go. 
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Castle51 on May 23, 2009, 11:57:56 PM
Here is something I've been wondering about the B-17 in AH recently.  If you look up its specs (at least in wiki) it says its payload was 4000lbs long range and 8000lbs short range (Just about the same as the B-24).  Now pretty much anything in the MA could be considered short range so how does the B-24 get 8k while the B-17 only gets 6?
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: oneway on May 26, 2009, 05:46:28 PM
That would make little sense other then to put the G in the hanger as the F would be a bit faster, and the nose guns on the G just aren't that vital in the MA.  You'd still have lazer 50s in the nose of an E or F anyway.

Adding those variants would be purely for historical purposes in scenarios, snapshots or for skinning different birds. 

I completely disagree that the chin guns are not important or vital.

When I have some guy closing on my 6 at about 1200, I chop throttle completely...I can't count the number of times I have killed bad guys over shooting who think along the lines that the chin guns are basically irrelevant.

85% of the folks in MA have neither the patience or knowledge to properly take down bombers...nearly 100% of these guys will pull up slowly right in front of you on the over shoot exposing the entire top half of the aircraft to the nose guns...

I would enjoy trying the other variants for historical purpose, but I would choose the G every time in MA

1Way

Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Guppy35 on May 26, 2009, 11:22:51 PM
I completely disagree that the chin guns are not important or vital.

When I have some guy closing on my 6 at about 1200, I chop throttle completely...I can't count the number of times I have killed bad guys over shooting who think along the lines that the chin guns are basically irrelevant.

85% of the folks in MA have neither the patience or knowledge to properly take down bombers...nearly 100% of these guys will pull up slowly right in front of you on the over shoot exposing the entire top half of the aircraft to the nose guns...

I would enjoy trying the other variants for historical purpose, but I would choose the G every time in MA

1Way



Don't speak too soon.  A faster B17F with twin nose guns, as many had, might tempt you away from the G :)

(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/17F-1.jpg)
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Swatch on May 27, 2009, 12:20:24 PM
The F is a better looking bird.  I'd fly her ALL the time for her speed and looks.
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Castle51 on May 27, 2009, 10:49:47 PM
Here is something I've been wondering about the B-17 in AH recently.  If you look up its specs (at least in wiki) it says its payload was 4000lbs long range and 8000lbs short range (Just about the same as the B-24).  Now pretty much anything in the MA could be considered short range so how does the B-24 get 8k while the B-17 only gets 6?

Uhh.... anybody?
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: Serenity on May 27, 2009, 10:57:33 PM
I'm just wondering, what is the difference between B-17 E, F, and G? 

I like to remind folks that the F is 10mph faster than the G :)
Title: Re: B-17 Variants
Post by: FYB on May 28, 2009, 06:27:13 PM
I like to remind folks that the F is 10mph faster than the G :)
Now we can avoid 262's...  :D

-FYB