Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: stealth on August 04, 2009, 06:08:19 AM

Title: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: stealth on August 04, 2009, 06:08:19 AM
The short string is really just a heavy bomber.I want it because if we don't get a He.111 or a B29 we should get something like this we need some new bomber.I would hope you would agree the B24 and B17 are getting old for more information on the short string go to www.81st.webs.com
topic's about short string will be posted on the 6Th do to event's.
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: hammer on August 04, 2009, 07:35:16 AM
I'm guessing you mean the Short Stirling? I'm also guessing you have absolutely no idea about its operational use.

Do a little research, then post a coherent reason why it would contribute to the plane set. (HINT: It would contribute to the plane set, but probably not in the way you're thinking)

BTW, congratulations on using punctuation in your last post! Now remember to add a space or two after the period and it will look like a real paragraph.

Regards,

Hammer
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: trigger2 on August 04, 2009, 11:20:45 AM
I too am gonna guess you mean the Short Stirling.  Because I know you won't do it, here's the specs on her. My only issue... 18,000 lbs of ord?! IMO, nothing with that much capability to single-handedly do so much damage should be added. The game is supposed to NOT be able to be a 1 man show, but take a bit of cooperation (I know, I know, since when does THAT happen? Oh... yeah...  it's summer time... :D).

General characteristics

Crew: 7
Length: 87 ft 3 in (26.6 m)
Wingspan: 99 ft 1 in (30.2 m)
Height: 28 ft 10 in (8.8 m)
Wing area: 1,322 ft² (122.8 m²)
Empty weight: 44,000 lb (19,950 kg)
Loaded weight: 59,400 lb (26,940 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 70,000 lb (31,750 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Bristol Hercules II radial engine, 1,375 hp (1,030 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 255 mph (410 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
Range: 2,330 mi (3,750 km)
Service ceiling: 16,500 ft (5,030 m)
Rate of climb: 800 ft/min (4 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (219.4 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.093 hp/lb (0.153 kW/kg)
Armament


Guns: 8 x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns: 2 in powered nose turret, 4 in tail turret, 2 in dorsal turret
Bombs: Up to 18,000 lb (8,164 kg) of bombs
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Saxman on August 04, 2009, 11:30:26 AM
My only issue... 18,000 lbs of ord?! IMO,

May as well add the B-29 at that point.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: shifty95 on August 04, 2009, 12:33:04 PM
May as well add the B-29 at that point.  :rolleyes:

yeah, there are reasons that hitech will never add this or the b29. one of them is, its way too impractical. it can hold 18k+ lbs of bombs, and that can can take out an hq with one formation. we dont need that.
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Spikes on August 04, 2009, 02:34:42 PM
yeah, there are reasons that hitech will never add this or the b29. one of them is, its way too impractical. it can hold 18k+ lbs of bombs, and that can can take out an hq with one formation. we dont need that.
The lanc can.
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Reaper90 on August 04, 2009, 03:20:05 PM
yeah, there are reasons that hitech will never add this or the b29. one of them is, its way too impractical. it can hold 18k+ lbs of bombs, and that can can take out an hq with one formation. we dont need that.

Just imagine how dangerous it would be if it were the other bomber model developed, the Long String!

 :x
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Ack-Ack on August 04, 2009, 06:53:41 PM
Here's a picture of a short string plane.  Would kind of suck to fly.


(http://raygaysales.com/store/images/STRING%20PLANE.jpg)


ack-ack
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Larry on August 04, 2009, 07:06:35 PM
yeah, there are reasons that hitech will never add this or the b29. one of them is, its way too impractical. it can hold 18k+ lbs of bombs, and that can can take out an hq with one formation. we dont need that.



From their help and info page:

''The perk system is a way for HTC to introduce some interesting but otherwise unbalancing planes on a limited basis but the benefits go deeper than that.  Perk planes (and vehicles) would be things like Me 262s, Ta 152s, Tempests, B-29s, Ar 234s, Tiger IIs, etc.  These are interesting rides but would be very unbalancing if they were available on an unlimited basis.  So there won't be unlimited availability but they'll be available as bonuses or perks every so often. ''
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Ack-Ack on August 04, 2009, 08:14:50 PM
As stated by both HiTech and Pyro regarding that quote, those planes were just used as examples of what kind of planes would be perked and not necessarily mean planes that we'll see in game. 

ack-ack
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Enker on August 04, 2009, 08:23:30 PM
Here's a picture of a short string plane.  Would kind of suck to fly.


(http://raygaysales.com/store/images/STRING%20PLANE.jpg)


ack-ack
If that is a heavy bomber, then what is the Lancaster, or even the A-20? Super-dee-duper, to the umpteenth degree heavy bomber?
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Flipperk on August 04, 2009, 11:30:46 PM
I too am gonna guess you mean the Short Stirling.  Because I know you won't do it, here's the specs on her. My only issue... 18,000 lbs of ord?! IMO, nothing with that much capability to single-handedly do so much damage should be added. The game is supposed to NOT be able to be a 1 man show, but take a bit of cooperation (I know, I know, since when does THAT happen? Oh... yeah...  it's summer time... :D).

General characteristics

Crew: 7
Length: 87 ft 3 in (26.6 m)
Wingspan: 99 ft 1 in (30.2 m)
Height: 28 ft 10 in (8.8 m)
Wing area: 1,322 ft² (122.8 m²)
Empty weight: 44,000 lb (19,950 kg)
Loaded weight: 59,400 lb (26,940 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 70,000 lb (31,750 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Bristol Hercules II radial engine, 1,375 hp (1,030 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 255 mph (410 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
Range: 2,330 mi (3,750 km)
Service ceiling: 16,500 ft (5,030 m)
Rate of climb: 800 ft/min (4 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (219.4 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.093 hp/lb (0.153 kW/kg)
Armament


Guns: 8 x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns: 2 in powered nose turret, 4 in tail turret, 2 in dorsal turret
Bombs: Up to 18,000 lb (8,164 kg) of bombs


Your 5 foot 6 inches.
200 pounds.

Why should I like you?

All i see is stats why do we need it?
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: AWwrgwy on August 04, 2009, 11:36:42 PM
The short string is really just a heavy bomber.I want it because if we don't get a He.111 or a B29 we should get something like this we need some new bomber.I would hope you would agree the B24 and B17 are getting old for more information on the short string go to www.81st.webs.com
topic's about short string will be posted on the 6Th do to event's.

Do I detect punctuation?!?!?

Proper spacing and paragraphs are next?!?!?

WTG!!1!

Keep up the good work.


wrongway
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Bino on August 05, 2009, 01:13:24 AM
The short string is really just a heavy bomber.I want it because if we don't get a He.111 or a B29 we should get something like this we need some new bomber.I would hope you would agree the B24 and B17 are getting old for more information on the short string go to www.81st.webs.com
topic's about short string will be posted on the 6Th do to event's.

Better.  Definitely a better quality post.  Keep at it, Stealth.  This is OK, but you can do even more to improve your style.   :salute

For example, you might think about including one convincing reason why we need the plane you suggest...

"The Short Stirling was the first four-engine bomber used by the RAF, starting with 7 Squadron in February 1941.  In Aces High it would fill the heavy bomber slot in Early War events and arenas."

(http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/images/h1568.jpg)


Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: stealth on August 05, 2009, 02:33:48 AM
Better.  Definitely a better quality post.  Keep at it, Stealth.  This is OK, but you can do even more to improve your style.   :salute

For example, you might think about including one convincing reason why we need the plane you suggest...

"The Short Stirling was the first four-engine bomber used by the RAF, starting with 7 Squadron in February 1941.  In Aces High it would fill the heavy bomber slot in Early War events and arenas."

(http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/images/h1568.jpg)



Thank you I didn't have time to find all the facts about it and a picture thank you.
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Westy on August 05, 2009, 06:59:25 PM
Wicked pissa plane!

 If HTC brought this to AH then we'd definitely need the Axis counterpart
the "Langer Stiefelriemen"
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: trigger2 on August 05, 2009, 10:18:18 PM

Your 5 foot 6 inches.
200 pounds.
Why should I like you?
All i see is stats why do we need it?

1) 5' 9".
2) 130 lbs
3) I'm not saying we need it, quite the opposite. ;)

Because I know you won't do it, here's the specs on her. My only issue... 18,000 lbs of ord?! IMO, nothing with that much capability to single-handedly do so much damage should be added. The game is supposed to NOT be able to be a 1 man show, but take a bit of cooperation (I know, I know, since when does THAT happen? Oh... yeah...  it's summer time... :D).
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: B4Buster on August 06, 2009, 07:56:06 AM
down side of the stirling was its low service ceiling. In AH where fights are generally low it would be great. Wouldn't want to be caught in that thing during a scenario though.
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Jayhawk on August 06, 2009, 11:00:06 AM
1) 5' 9".
2) 130 lbs

Trigger2 
(http://th08.deviantart.net/fs40/300W/i/2009/005/1/c/Stick_man___With_attitude_by_Cafcow.jpg)
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: 1Boner on August 06, 2009, 03:00:01 PM
Wicked pissa plane!


From New England are ya?  :salute
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: LLogann on August 06, 2009, 03:17:17 PM
Think about that for a second......... How many times do you approach Lanc's and think, "oh geez I'm dead if I try and kill those buffs"  18k in ord wont do much with 8 .303's IMHO.  Bring it On!!!  More newb fodder!!!  The thing will climb like a rock and be easy prey for the 109's, spit's of the world.  You still have to get to the base to bomb it.

My only issue... 18,000 lbs of ord?! IMO, nothing with that much capability to single-handedly do so much damage should be added. The game is supposed to NOT be able to be a 1 man show, but take a bit of cooperation (I know, I know, since when does THAT happen? Oh... yeah...  it's summer time... :D).

Guns: 8 x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns: 2 in powered nose turret, 4 in tail turret, 2 in dorsal turret
Bombs: Up to 18,000 lb (8,164 kg) of bombs
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Saxman on August 06, 2009, 03:25:46 PM
As oppossed to the B-29 which will be absolutely murderous to attack.
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: SirFrancis on August 07, 2009, 11:38:21 AM
"Langer Stiefelriemen"

Whats that?
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Denholm on August 07, 2009, 12:51:27 PM
I don't know (http://www.google.com).


Like we need another British dive-bomber.
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: SirFrancis on August 07, 2009, 01:40:59 PM
I don't know (http://www.google.com).


Like we need another British dive-bomber.

google doesn´t know either...
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Denholm on August 07, 2009, 01:48:44 PM
My apologies, perhaps a typo on the part of Westy (unless it was a clever bait)?
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Nemisis on August 07, 2009, 02:44:48 PM
As oppossed to the B-29 which will be absolutely murderous to attack.

Not nessicarily so. Whenever I attack bombers I don't try to hold it unless it is a rifle calibur armed bomber. I come in at full speed, shoot up the buff, and zoom away to make another pass.

It seems like the biggest threat would be the 20mm in the tail, and that can be solved by attacking in other areas.
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Westy on August 07, 2009, 03:30:42 PM
It's supposed to be German for "Large Bootstrap"

A 1941 Axis counter-weapon to the UK "Short string"


heheheheh
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Denholm on August 07, 2009, 05:36:21 PM
Dang you nailed us.
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Nemisis on August 07, 2009, 06:07:07 PM
Who are you talking to?
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Swatch on August 07, 2009, 08:43:19 PM
Thank you I didn't have time to find all the facts about it and a picture thank you.

You have enough time to post all these threads...

Here's an idea.  Post half as much and research twice as much.  It will get you further on this board.
Title: Re: British Heavy Bomber short "String"
Post by: Plawranc on August 08, 2009, 08:25:17 AM
My great uncle flew on one of these, he even landed one because the entire crew was killed or incapacitated except him (mission on Berlin).

I would love to fly it and I also have a partial spot for it because of its beauty.