Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: thndregg on April 19, 2010, 04:36:55 PM

Title: The B17F
Post by: thndregg on April 19, 2010, 04:36:55 PM
In the interest of variation, such as the case with the P38-G, J, and L, the various P47 models, and many more, I would like to see the introduction of the B17F. This would open up the avenue of more skins being introduced as well for this aircraft, such as the well recognized "Memphis Belle". Thank you.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Saxman on April 19, 2010, 04:52:18 PM
+1

B-17G is WHOLLY inappropriate for PTO scenarios. A B-17E or F would be much appreciated in FSO.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: minke on April 19, 2010, 04:54:38 PM
Death star II ?  Good lord  :O
That said,
What does the F model have that would justify its addition?
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Raptor on April 19, 2010, 05:31:24 PM
No chin turret
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Saxman on April 19, 2010, 05:31:56 PM
Death star II ?  Good lord  :O
That said,
What does the F model have that would justify its addition?

There's this for starters:

Quote
B-17G is WHOLLY inappropriate for PTO scenarios. A B-17E or F would be much appreciated in FSO.

The B-17F is also more appropriate for early-war scenarios than the G. It's a low priority for sure (need a Ki-43 and G4M first) but earlier versions of the B-17, B-24 and also the Lancaster would find uses, particularly in scenario play.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: curry1 on April 19, 2010, 05:38:48 PM
Indeed when you are flying an a6m2 in a FSO and you as much as see a b-17 your dead which happened in the Too Little too Late Scenario(I think).  I don't even think most people even went after the b-17s becuase of the 110% chance of death.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: thndregg on April 19, 2010, 05:45:19 PM
No chin turret

I realize this, hence the reason I made the request. It doesn't have to be superior to be included, I would think.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Krusty on April 19, 2010, 05:45:38 PM
Main armament changes would be:

Reduced cone of fire in the rear tail turret (it would have the original tail, not the Cheyenne tail our -G has), open side windows, equally spaced left/right (nonstaggered), a single gun in the radio room hatch, no "cheek blister" guns that can aim forward (most were angled outward and had narrow windows of fire), only 1 gun in the nose on a flex mount, and a bit of a different performance envelope.

Would still be a problem for A6M2s, I have no doubt. Better than a -G, though!

Also, in WW2 the Luftwaffe learned to make head-on passes on bombers to minimize time inside the defensive gun range. Usually bombers had less guns in the nose because of the bombadier. Later models of B-17s and B-24s carried powered turrets in response to this LW tactic (which proved effective). For scenarios in that time frame before the chin turrets showed up it would be nice to see them over Europe, as well!
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: ACE on April 19, 2010, 05:57:57 PM
+1
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: FYB on April 19, 2010, 07:31:23 PM
I realize this, hence the reason I made the request. It doesn't have to be superior to be included, I would think.
It's got everything i want, hell... Why not, +10. I give it +1 for the idea and +9 because I personally fly the B-17 and would love to see other variants!
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Spikes on April 19, 2010, 07:36:53 PM
I realize this, hence the reason I made the request. It doesn't have to be superior to be included, I would think.
Think he was replying to the post above him. :)
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: thndregg on April 19, 2010, 09:51:09 PM
Think he was replying to the post above him. :)

 :headscratch: :rolleyes: Gotcha. I apologize. :o
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Guppy35 on April 19, 2010, 11:14:11 PM
Main armament changes would be:

Reduced cone of fire in the rear tail turret (it would have the original tail, not the Cheyenne tail our -G has), open side windows, equally spaced left/right (nonstaggered), a single gun in the radio room hatch, no "cheek blister" guns that can aim forward (most were angled outward and had narrow windows of fire), only 1 gun in the nose on a flex mount, and a bit of a different performance envelope.

Would still be a problem for A6M2s, I have no doubt. Better than a -G, though!

Also, in WW2 the Luftwaffe learned to make head-on passes on bombers to minimize time inside the defensive gun range. Usually bombers had less guns in the nose because of the bombadier. Later models of B-17s and B-24s carried powered turrets in response to this LW tactic (which proved effective). For scenarios in that time frame before the chin turrets showed up it would be nice to see them over Europe, as well!

I'd love to see the 17F as it was a big player and would be more appropriate for the PTO stuff as it could sub for the E as well.  As for nose and cheek guns.  They did introduce the bulged cheek guns on the F and it kind of depends on what was decided on the nose gun as it was often two 50s.  Since folks all know the Belle, she had two 50s in the nose.  The preferable option apparently was the single 50. but it all depends on who did the mod in the field.

The F was apparently the fastest of the 17s too.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: TOMCAT21 on April 19, 2010, 11:50:52 PM
+1
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Hap on April 20, 2010, 07:13:22 AM
I'm for it . . . as if that carries any weight.  :)
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Gr8pape on April 20, 2010, 07:45:12 AM
+1
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Wildcat1 on April 20, 2010, 02:38:10 PM
I'd love to see the 17F as it was a big player and would be more appropriate for the PTO stuff as it could sub for the E as well.  As for nose and cheek guns.  They did introduce the bulged cheek guns on the F and it kind of depends on what was decided on the nose gun as it was often two 50s.  Since folks all know the Belle, she had two 50s in the nose.  The preferable option apparently was the single 50. but it all depends on who did the mod in the field.

The F was apparently the fastest of the 17s too.

yep and it also had the ability to carry bombs externally

although i wouldnt, as a lucky tater shot to the external ords would end my day really quick

oh, and +1  :aok
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: oakranger on April 20, 2010, 06:04:02 PM
I too would like to see a early version on a Ju-88, B-17 and B-24s
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: lyric1 on April 20, 2010, 09:39:54 PM
Can't think of any good reason to say no & should be able to transfer a lot of the code from the G model I think :headscratch:.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: FYB on April 20, 2010, 10:00:15 PM
Can't think of any good reason to say no & should be able to transfer a lot of the code from the G model I think :headscratch:.
The frame design isn't significantly different from the G i suppose, especially sense the G is a on-steroid F model.

Anyone happen to have any info on the structures of the two models?
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Wildcat1 on April 20, 2010, 10:09:05 PM
all i know about the structure of both the F and G models is that the skin was so thin that the mechanics could punch holes through them w/ their screwdrivers. what made it so rugged was the frame of the plane, it just wouldnt come apart.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: FYB on April 20, 2010, 10:22:48 PM
all i know about the structure of both the F and G models is that the skin was so thin that the mechanics could punch holes through them w/ their screwdrivers. what made it so rugged was the frame of the plane, it just wouldnt come apart.
I know that, but what i meant was, are all the B-17 structures the same w/ some small modifications?
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Clone155 on April 21, 2010, 12:16:20 AM
Yes please.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: whiteman on April 21, 2010, 01:05:46 AM
No doubt would like to see this for Pac use.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: thndregg on April 21, 2010, 08:09:57 AM
Here's a good couple of comparative pics demonstrating some variations. Left pic of B17F "Memphis Belle" shows the difference in frontal defenses to the pic on the right, the B17F "Sweet & Lovely". The cheek guns have been modified to protrude to what we now have on the "G". Thought I would throw this out there. :)

(http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/060517-F-1234S-021.jpg)(http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/231330-2/ww2+photos+001)
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: Masherbrum on April 21, 2010, 08:18:33 AM
Main armament changes would be:

Reduced cone of fire in the rear tail turret (it would have the original tail, not the Cheyenne tail our -G has), open side windows, equally spaced left/right (nonstaggered), a single gun in the radio room hatch, no "cheek blister" guns that can aim forward (most were angled outward and had narrow windows of fire), only 1 gun in the nose on a flex mount, and a bit of a different performance envelope.

Would still be a problem for A6M2s, I have no doubt. Better than a -G, though!

Also, in WW2 the Luftwaffe learned to make head-on passes on bombers to minimize time inside the defensive gun range. Usually bombers had less guns in the nose because of the bombadier. Later models of B-17s and B-24s carried powered turrets in response to this LW tactic (which proved effective). For scenarios in that time frame before the chin turrets showed up it would be nice to see them over Europe, as well!

The Abbeville Kids still HO'd the B-17's to great effect.    The B-17 crews cringed (regardless of having a chin turret) when they saw Yellow nosed planes, they knew what was coming.
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: perdue3 on April 23, 2010, 10:00:58 AM
+1




perdweeb
Title: Re: The B17F
Post by: valad94 on April 23, 2010, 11:48:45 PM
+1 :aok