Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Ack-Ack on November 03, 2010, 05:23:31 PM
-
Since the B-29 is one of the finalists and probably be the winner, I came across this nifty little chart.
/discuss
(http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/d803539c934de7288c4de8b793e1b3c17d95717.pjpg)
ack-ack
-
60 minutes to make it to 20k? yeah thats gonna happen!
-
Would you happen to have a larger version of that?
thanks
-
Wonder if they'll model in the engine problems?
-
I wonder if the B version would be any different than the A in regards to the performance chart.
ack-ack
-
60 minutes to make it to 20k? yeah thats gonna happen!
Why wouldn't it? At those climb rates; it seems totally logical. Or are you saying you do not have the patience to climb to 20k?
-
Would you happen to have a larger version of that?
thanks
sorry but that was the largest size I could find that was readable.
ack-ack
-
sorry but that was the largest size I could find that was readable.
ack-ack
alright, no worries
thanks for posting
-
Wonder if they'll model in the engine problems?
If HiTech doesn't want to be deafened by all the whines of "My B-29 caught fire on take off and blew up!" it won't be.
ack-ack
-
Would be interesting to get mines.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/B29Attacks2.jpg)
-
No Ack-Ack.
My B29 is still teh ub3r l33ts
-
based on the chart 30 minutes to 10k and 60 minutes to 20k @ 10k they wiill be easy prey , waiting a hour to get to 20k the base your attacking you'd have to set up missions for the 29 a hour in advance of the actual attack so they hit with the main force.
-
based on the chart 30 minutes to 10k and 60 minutes to 20k @ 10k they wiill be easy prey , waiting a hour to get to 20k the base your attacking you'd have to set up missions for the 29 a hour in advance of the actual attack so they hit with the main force.
There are more a few players that do that stuff. Getting a Lanc to >25k isn't really faster. My own B-17 runs did frequently last 90-150 minutes. I often did fly bomber missions while doing household chores during daytime. No problem spending a hour climbing, I will take a shower, check computer, wash the dishes, check it again, and so on.
And also you can of course take less fuel in the 29. 50% should still give quite some flying time, while significantly reducing time to climb.
-
I think they should force it to have 100% fuel every time it takes off (like every heavy and medium bomber should) in-game to prevent it from proverbially flying around on fumes (like a bat outta hell, unlike it ever did in combat).
-
Wonder if they'll model in the engine problems?
They don't with any of the other planes.
- oldman
-
Wonder if they'll model in the engine problems?
be funny if they did it with the 262.. 200+ perks and then boom!
-
be funny if they did it with the 262.. 200+ perks and then boom!
The 163 had that problem as well. Since they mixed in chemicals for the rocket fuel, it would sometimes blow up on takeoff.
-
I'm thinking that if they modeled engineering/manufacturing flaws that some of us may not ever get off the ground.
-
I think they should force it to have 100% fuel every time it takes off (like every heavy and medium bomber should) in-game to prevent it from proverbially flying around on fumes (like a bat outta hell, unlike it ever did in combat).
Why? They didn't load bombers with 100% fuel during the war when it wasn't necessary.
-
60 minutes to make it to 20k? yeah thats gonna happen!
Perk it!! Its da debil!! :devil
-
some of us may not ever get off the ground.
some of us barely do!
-
where do they come up with the combat weight? it has to be after bombs out, plus half the fuel burned?
(just trying to figure out how they come from 140,000 to 96,900 on "max bombs mission")
anyway, notice the high alt combat speed is 399mph :)
-
Why? They didn't load bombers with 100% fuel during the war when it wasn't necessary.
I don't know that it ever applied to the 29. If we really want to do it right, we'd make the first 29 drivers carry fuel over the Hump to their bases before they can take off for a mission :)
-
If we really want to do it right, we'd make the first 29 drivers carry fuel over the Hump to their bases before they can take off for a mission :)
Somehow I like that idea :D
-
what's interesting about that chart is the Takeoff run to clear a 50' obstacle distance, 7800'. Do we even have a runway long enough for that in the current game? Most runway seem to terminate with 100-150' tall trees starting abrubtly thereafter.
-
60 minutes to make it to 20k? yeah thats gonna happen!
the chart shows RL figures, not AH figures. the 500fpm climbrate and times to 10k and 20k are using Normal Power settings.
Assuming its modelled like the other US heavy bombers in AH it will be allowed to fly around permanently at Takeoff Power (ie. WEP).
the chart shows 1,555-2,140fpm for Max Climb using Max Power depending on loadout. Given it will be flown in AH at 25% fuel and firewalled to Takeoff Power, I'd expect typical AH climbrates to be around 2,000fpm, so figure 15-20min to hit 20k.
-
B-29 loadouts from the manual (AN 01-20EJ-1):
80x 100lb
56x 300lb
40x 500lb
12x 1,000lb
12x 1,600lb
8x 2,000lb
4x 4,000lb
-
B-29 loadouts from the manual (AN 01-20EJ-1):
80x 100lb
56x 300lb
40x 500lb
12x 1,000lb
12x 1,600lb
8x 2,000lb
4x 4,000lb
:O :O :O :O
Now I see why people want this thing!!
-
only thing i see with that load out you devistate a V base within mins , so i forsee someway of making Vbases alot more harder to take and even airbases. cause i know people in here probably have 1000000 bomber points saved up. unless AH resets the bomber points to make it fair. i mean a raid of 2-3 people in 29's can take out a vase with ease.
-
The 163 had that problem as well. Since they mixed in chemicals for the rocket fuel, it would sometimes blow up on takeoff.
Got proof this happened.
Suggested reading, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm
1. Rocket engines would explode without warning.
RO: engines were reliable and relatively safe and were adjusted so as to shut down in the event of an imbalance in fuel flow. If there was a problem in engine performance, it related to shutdowns, not explosions. The only instances of engines blowing were in early testing of prototypes or when they had been damaged in battle or by accident.
2. Leaking fuel could turn pilots to jelly, particularly if the plane flipped over.
RO: pilots, me included, survived overturned Komets, and an overturned ship would not necessarily leak fuel into the cockpit. When fuel contacted organic material, including skin, it ignited after only a few seconds. Our protective nylon suits would not ignite but were porous, and fuel could sop through to the skin.
3. Forward-mounted flaps were necessary to counter a negative pitching moment from the trailing-edge flaps.
RO: the TE flaps were trim flaps only, and the deployment of the forward-mounted underwing flaps did not cause a pitch change.
4. The Komet’s dive to speeds resulting in compressibility were often fatal.
RO: no fatalities resulted from this, to my knowledge. The Komets in such dives recovered after reaching a lower altitude that neutralized the compressibility problems.
5. As many as 15 percent of Komets broke up while pulling out of high-speed dives where compressibility had became a factor.
RO: no such fatalities to my knowledge.
6. Stall characteristics were abrupt and severe and taxed the skills of even experienced fighter pilots.
RO: the plane was equipped with leading-edge slots that eliminated stalls and caused it to mush forward in a mode that was immediately recoverable. The plane would not spin and was intentionally designed to be docile for low-time pilots.
7. Only experienced pilots could adequately handle the airplane at slow speeds.
RO: the plane was docile and friendly at slow speeds, and it had to be for low-time pilots to successfully land it dead-stick.
8. The Komet was not a successful fighter but future development would have made it a formidable interceptor.
RO: The 263—the next incarnation—had retractable landing gear, a pressurized cabin and considerably more fuel, but it never got beyond the early prototype stage.
I agree the 163B was not a successful fighter. Several hundred 163Bs were built,
but only 91 were operational as of December 31, 1944, and only 16 kills were attributed to 163s during the War. Note, however, that while under power or in a fast glide, the 163 could fly circles around any other fighter of its time.
In fact, the true contribution of the Komet was to high-speed flight as evidenced by the success of the delta-wing Concorde and delta-wing space shuttle. These Lippisch planform concepts live on today.
-
B-29 loadouts from the manual (AN 01-20EJ-1):
80x 100lb
56x 300lb
40x 500lb
12x 1,000lb
12x 1,600lb
8x 2,000lb
4x 4,000lb
(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/1491/funnypicturesracoonyes.jpg)
-
That chart though would I think only apply for the B-29A but if we get the B-29B, I think those numbers will be quite different. Has it been said which version of the B-29 we're voting for? Is it the A or the B or would we get the A because it was by far the largest variant produced?
If I was a player that liked to fly bombers, I would hope that it would be the B model. It was lighter, faster and carried a larger payload at the expense of armor and defensive guns except the tail gun position. The 20mm was also replaced by three .50 caliber machine guns.
ack-ack
-
Did the B-29B see service during the war? The two that dropped the atomic bombs were field modified B-29As.
-
only thing i see with that load out you devistate a V base within mins , so i forsee someway of making Vbases alot more harder to take and even airbases. cause i know people in here probably have 1000000 bomber points saved up. unless AH resets the bomber points to make it fair. i mean a raid of 2-3 people in 29's can take out a vase with ease.
Where is this belief that the B-29 can take down bases in one pass coming from? It can still only drop bombs in a strait line, just like any other bomber. Guess what, 2 guys can drop a v-base in one pass in a B-17, or a B-26! :O It's not like I'm dropping most of a base in a Lancaster on one pass but am only stopped because I run out of bombs.
Also, how is resetting the bomber perks fair? :rolleyes:
-
Did the B-29B see service during the war? The two that dropped the atomic bombs were field modified B-29As.
The B-29Bs that were produced prior to the end of the war were used by the 315th Bombardment Wing in the Marianas and I believe was the only group to receive the B-29B.
ack-ack
-
Where is this belief that the B-29 can take down bases in one pass coming from? It can still only drop bombs in a strait line, just like any other bomber. Guess what, 2 guys can drop a v-base in one pass in a B-17, or a B-26! :O It's not like I'm dropping most of a base in a Lancaster on one pass but am only stopped because I run out of bombs.
Also, how is resetting the bomber perks fair? :rolleyes:
all it takes is 2-3 guys to drop hangers rest of ords on GV's and base is toast. if the load out is correct we are taking almost twice the payload so what would normally take 6 lanc would only take 3 B-29's and those that have 1000's of perks will really have no punishment for throwing away perks for a while cause they have plenty to use.
-
all it takes is 2-3 guys to drop hangers rest of ords on GV's and base is toast. if the load out is correct we are taking almost twice the payload so what would normally take 6 lanc
Wrong math. There are only 3 hangars on a VBase. If you plane has 14k or 20k it doesn't matter. 3 flights of B-29s can not kill a base more thoroughly than 3 flights of Lancs.
(And take a look at the numbers: When loading the common 1000lbs bombs, the Lanc actually carries more than the B-29)
-
all it takes is 2-3 guys to drop hangers rest of ords on GV's and base is toast. if the load out is correct we are taking almost twice the payload so what would normally take 6 lanc would only take 3 B-29's and those that have 1000's of perks will really have no punishment for throwing away perks for a while cause they have plenty to use.
A three flight of P-51s/38s/47s can all take out a Vbase. Are you sure you actually play the same game as the rest of us?
-
A three flight of P-51s/38s/47s can all take out a Vbase. Are you sure you actually play the same game as the rest of us?
if it so easy why isnt it being done so effectively? i agree 3 planes can take out a vbase provided its not defended. and if 3 planes can do it , 3 people in B-29's would could do it at 15-20k while the 3 planes might make it or might not make it.
all i know is i can see it now people whining how a hoard of 29's took out a base and defenders with ease.
3x120 = 360 X 3 500lbs bombs in a formation should clear out vh's and any gv's in a single pass.
so thats 1080 500lbs bombs in a group of 3 bombers. that should take just about any field out. with ease
also i might add you know people are gonna be able to up and sink CV's alot easier with that much bomb load
-
Wrong math. There are only 3 hangars on a VBase. If you plane has 14k or 20k it doesn't matter. 3 flights of B-29s can not kill a base more thoroughly than 3 flights of Lancs.
(And take a look at the numbers: When loading the common 1000lbs bombs, the Lanc actually carries more than the B-29)
:O :O :O
Is it true...
Do I?
Really?
I'm gonna do it... correct Lusche
V-bases have 4 hangers now. :rock :banana:
:neener:
-
if it so easy why isnt it being done so effectively? i agree 3 planes can take out a vbase provided its not defended. and if 3 planes can do it , 3 people in B-29's would could do it at 15-20k while the 3 planes might make it or might not make it.
all i know is i can see it now people whining how a hoard of 29's took out a base and defenders with ease.
3x120 = 360 X 3 500lbs bombs in a formation should clear out vh's and any gv's in a single pass.
so thats 1080 500lbs bombs in a group of 3 bombers. that should take just about any field out. with ease
also i might add you know people are gonna be able to up and sink CV's alot easier with that much bomb load
Do you play the game?
People do shut down bases all the time, and people do whine.
-
if it so easy why isnt it being done so effectively? i agree 3 planes can take out a vbase provided its not defended. and if 3 planes can do it , 3 people in B-29's would could do it at 15-20k
So can Lancs or B-24s.
3x120 = 360 X 3 500lbs bombs in a formation should clear out vh's and any gv's in a single pass.
so thats 1080 500lbs bombs in a group of 3 bombers. that should take just about any field out. with ease
Only if all defenders sit close to the VHs. If the bomber drops all his bombs on a single pass, the 29 will just produce a longer sting of bombs plowing the landscape.
More bombs doesn't equate more effectiveness.
But then, I constantly saw players upping their Lancs again and again for a target that didn't need that much bombs, but was well defended by fighters. When someone suggested taking a B-17 for its better survival characteristics, the answer was almost always: "But the Lanc carries more bombs!". Bombs that either never got to the target are or simply made a lot of craters, not damage.
-
Excellent point Lusche.
if it so easy why isnt it being done so effectively? i agree 3 planes can take out a vbase provided its not defended. and if 3 planes can do it , 3 people in B-29's would could do it at 15-20k while the 3 planes might make it or might not make it.
all i know is i can see it now people whining how a hoard of 29's took out a base and defenders with ease.
3x120 = 360 X 3 500lbs bombs in a formation should clear out vh's and any gv's in a single pass.
so thats 1080 500lbs bombs in a group of 3 bombers. that should take just about any field out. with ease
also i might add you know people are gonna be able to up and sink CV's alot easier with that much bomb load
It is being done often.
It is just as easy to drop a CV with a 17/24/26. CVs only require around 8lbs of ord to sink it. Like Lusche said more doesn't mean more accurate.
-
based on the chart 30 minutes to 10k and 60 minutes to 20k @ 10k they wiill be easy prey , waiting a hour to get to 20k the base your attacking you'd have to set up missions for the 29 a hour in advance of the actual attack so they hit with the main force.
Yes, but you still have the automated gun turrets.
-
Excellent point Lusche.
It is being done often.
It is just as easy to drop a CV with a 17/24/26. CVs only require around 8lbs of ord to sink it. Like Lusche said more doesn't mean more accurate.
the other way to look at it is .. more means you dont have to be as accurate too
-
the other way to look at it is .. more means you dont have to be as accurate too
Well you still have to hit it.
-
But then, I constantly saw players upping their Lancs again and again for a target that didn't need that much bombs, but was well defended by fighters. When someone suggested taking a B-17 for its better survival characteristics, the answer was almost always: "But the Lanc carries more bombs!". Bombs that either never got to the target are or simply made a lot of craters, not damage.
But then, the B-29 carries an equivalent bomb load to the Lanc AND is more survivable. She's 100mph faster at altitude and FAR more heavily-armed. Imagine the whines if hitech chooses to model the 20mm and 2x.50cal package in the tail position....
The B-29 would HAVE to be well-perked, or else it's almost guaranteed you wouldn't see another heavy bomber in the LWAs.
On the other hand, B-29s could make for some EPIC battles over the cities and HQ....
-
Thats what I am hoping for. Finally a reason to head to HQ Cities
-
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRW-024-eDiEBYKtSjqvuA63mTJ7f36G5sIM1SKly5FAMwVZr4&t=1&usg=__eOV7UnQ4kd7NVICp-DL00M0lM4I=)
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:RLuL9faErtGWGM:http://ww2.wwarii.com/d/7120-1/B-29s+in+flight-1945-67-6775.jpg&t=1)
(http://www.sun-inet.or.jp/~ja2tko/image.b29/b-29s_dropping_bombs.jpg)
say bye bye to your bases!
-
i would rather have the soviet TU-4!!! screw the B-29!
-
Really...
(http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/Boeing-B-17-Flying-Fortress-175.preview.jpg)
Tu-4...nice try. I guess you think you're funny.
-
lol we may get the B-29 but in my eyes I will be flying a Tu-4, which you americans so kindly "gave" us the examples to copy :devil
-
On the other hand, B-29s could make for some EPIC battles over the cities and HQ....
thats about the only place I'd expect to see 29s engaged, as the 163 is the only plane with a realistic hope of shooting one down.
-
There are more a few players that do that stuff. Getting a Lanc to >25k isn't really faster. My own B-17 runs did frequently last 90-150 minutes. I often did fly bomber missions while doing household chores during daytime. No problem spending a hour climbing, I will take a shower, check computer, wash the dishes, check it again, and so on.
And also you can of course take less fuel in the 29. 50% should still give quite some flying time, while significantly reducing time to climb.
lol and will come and shoot your B29 down while you are take a ahower or wash your dishes.
-
3x120 = 360 X 3 500lbs bombs in a formation should clear out vh's and any gv's in a single pass.
so thats 1080 500lbs bombs in a group of 3 bombers. that should take just about any field out. with ease
wtf kind of math is this?
40 500's per b29 = 120 500's per formation = 360 500's for 3 formations
as others have pointed out, it's complete overkill anyway, if the people know how to bomb.. for those who don't, it will just be more wasted bombs (much like the lanc carpetbombers who can't hit a damn thing)
-
and now they will have 50% more to miss with, or hit with
-
wtf kind of math is this?
40 500's per b29 = 120 500's per formation = 360 500's for 3 formations
as others have pointed out, it's complete overkill anyway, if the people know how to bomb.. for those who don't, it will just be more wasted bombs (much like the lanc carpetbombers who can't hit a damn thing)
B-29 loadouts from the manual (AN 01-20EJ-1):
80x 100lb
56x 300lb
40x 500lb
12x 1,000lb
12x 1,600lb
8x 2,000lb
4x 4,000lb
based on that a formation will have 120 X 500lb bombs, a group of 3 formations will have 1080 X 500lbs of bombs ? i dont know about you but your not gonna miss much with 1080 bombs
-
During the summer of 1944, 47 B-29s raided the Yawata steel works from bases in China; only one plane actually hit the target area, and with only one of its bombs. This single 500 lb general purpose bomb (which hit a powerhouse located 3,700 ft from the far more important coke houses that constituted the raid’s aiming point) represented one quarter of one per cent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission.
-
I think they should force it to have 100% fuel every time it takes off (like every heavy and medium bomber should) in-game to prevent it from proverbially flying around on fumes (like a bat outta hell, unlike it ever did in combat).
This is stupid.
PERHAPS they should also make it that once you get blown out of the sky you cant fly again, instead of being able to fly again with new life (like an immortal, unlike it ever happened in combat)
-
During the summer of 1944, 47 B-29s raided the Yawata steel works from bases in China; only one plane actually hit the target area, and with only one of its bombs. This single 500 lb general purpose bomb (which hit a powerhouse located 3,700 ft from the far more important coke houses that constituted the raid’s aiming point) represented one quarter of one per cent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission.
i beleive that but thats in RL there are wind and other varibles not present. there are plenty of people on each side that have the bombing down to able to hit things with ease. and now they have a 50% better chance of hitting them.
-
i dont know about you but your not gonna miss much with 1080 bombs
Small error in calibration and you miss with all of them.
-
Columbus, are you a buff pilot?
-
nope cant hit the nothing unless i carpet bomb. and with 120 x 500lb bombs i bet i will hit alot more :)
-
This is stupid.
well whats your suggestion to create combat between buffs and fighters in AH which in some way resembles engagements in WWII?
-
well whats your suggestion to create combat between buffs and fighters in AH which in some way resembles engagements in WWII?
I believe you took my post out of context. It was a direct reply to a post that I quoted.
-
nope cant hit the nothing unless i carpet bomb. and with 120 x 500lb bombs i bet i will hit alot more :)
I see. I didn't know and was curious since you have such animosity to the B-29.
-
I believe you took my post out of context. It was a direct reply to a post that I quoted.
I dont believe I did. Krusty offered a suggestion to create combat between buffs and fighters in AH which in some way resembles engagements in WWII, which you said was stupid.
I'm asking if you have a better idea? or didnt you understand Krusty's post?
-
I see. I didn't know and was curious since you have such animosity to the B-29.
i just feel in the right hands 2-3 good buff pilots can reak havoc
-
I dont believe I did. Krusty offered a suggestion to create combat between buffs and fighters in AH which in some way resembles engagements in WWII, which you said was stupid.
I'm asking if you have a better idea? or didnt you understand Krusty's post?
To require a buff pilot to have 100% fuel will not increase any combat in terms of fighter vs bomber. It will, in my opinion, decrease fighter vs bomber combat. You should not hinder one aspect of the game (the buff pilot). Nobody wants to fly around at 100% in any bomber, to heavy, to slow. If you only need 25% fuel to get to a base 50 miles away (game distance) then so be it, and in doing so you will not be at 20k - you will be at around 10k which will give fighters a target. Which in turn increases or, as of now, maintains fighter vs bomber interaction.
Its kind of like saying if you run a p-51d you should be required to take 100% fuel and a drop tank (if not both).
That makes it, to me, stupid.
-
i just feel in the right hands 2-3 good buff pilots can reak havoc
I agree, but that statement is true given the game's current set of bombers.
-
well its gonna be 2fold now IMHO
-
To require a buff pilot to have 100% fuel will not increase any combat in terms of fighter vs bomber. It will, in my opinion, decrease fighter vs bomber combat. You should not hinder one aspect of the game (the buff pilot). Nobody wants to fly around at 100% in any bomber, to heavy, to slow. If you only need 25% fuel to get to a base 50 miles away (game distance) then so be it, and in doing so you will not be at 20k - you will be at around 10k which will give fighters a target. Which in turn increases or, as of now, maintains fighter vs bomber interaction.
Its kind of like saying if you run a p-51d you should be required to take 100% fuel and a drop tank (if not both).
That makes it, to me, stupid.
too much to answer 1 at a time, so let me put it this way - the IJAAF didnt have alot of luck intercepting B29s in WWII.
our B29s in AH with no gulfstream to deal with, minimal fuel and continuous Takeoff Power will be flying 5-10k higher, climbing 3x faster and flying 100mph faster. how many people do you think will bother engaging them? and how successful will they be?
also bear in mind that any attack from behind the 3-9 line will face 2x .50 and a 20mm so if you can set it up, you'll have just one decent pass at a formation from in front of the 3-9 line. I dont know how tough they will be compared to B17s but they dont look very fragile to me ...
-
Lucky for us, we won't be limited to Japanese aircraft for intercepting the plane. It won't be easy attacking a flight of B-29s above 30k, it will take a lot of patience of the part of the pilot. But then again, that bomber pilot demonstrated extreme patience to get up to the altitude. I'd say he earned it.
-
I for one wont bother climbing a fighter to 30-40k for just 1 HO-pass, escorts or not. B-17s are hard enough to engage at that alt, let alone 29s which will be ~60mph faster at 30k. and I'm one of the "patient" buff hunters.
I see a new tactic for dealing with HQ raids - up a bunch of resupply goons and a coupla escorts when the 29s start their bomb run ...
-
Realistically, I doubt we will see that many 40k bombers. 163s will be an obvious threat for strat runs.
As for the goons; yes there will be big resupply runs, however, that's nothing new. Whenever a substantial attack is made on a strat target, large droves of goons already up to bring it back up.
-
thats about the only place I'd expect to see 29s engaged, as the 163 is the only plane with a realistic hope of shooting one down.
TA 152 should be able to intercept a B-29 at altitude but it will take some time and maneuvering to get into an ideal intercept position. There are a couple of other planes that if they take the time and have the patience, should be able to intercept the B-29 at altitude. The best time to intercept a B-29 is when it is climbing to altitude, it's a sitting duck and if we get the B-29B instead of the A model, much easier to intercept as you have to worry about a single defensive gun in the tail.
ack-ack
-
The best time to intercept a B-29 is when it is climbing to altitude
thats true of all buffs but how often are the more experienced buffers (ie those who could afford to fly the 29 regularly) caught out like this? not often I'll bet. it will also be less of a sitting duck than the rest of the buffs - same guns as the B-17 with an extra 20mm in the tail and much better climbrate ...
-
Other than the destructive capabilities of the B-29, how is it much different than say a 262? Its really all about tactics.
-
too much to answer 1 at a time, so let me put it this way - the IJAAF didnt have alot of luck intercepting B29s in WWII.
Because the IJAAF nor the IJN really had any inceptors in which to properly challenge the B-29 at high altitudes, however, the same can't be said of the other planes the B-29 would face in game that could intercept a B-29. You really can't use the difficulty of the Japanese to intercept the B-29 and apply it as a blanket statement on how difficult it would be to intercept the B-29 in game.
ack-ack
-
also bear in mind that any attack from behind the 3-9 line will face 2x .50 and a 20mm so if you can set it up, you'll have just one decent pass at a formation from in front of the 3-9 line. I dont know how tough they will be compared to B17s but they dont look very fragile to me ...
Bear in mind, defensive firepower and survivability will be wholly dependent on which B-29 we would get if it won the vote.
ack-ack
-
I'm assuming it will be the 29A. I mentioned the IJAAF not as concrete evidence (if thats what you mean by blanket) but just to put it into context. certainly the 29 wont be used in snapshots/scenarios etc unless pretty strict alt/speed/fuel constraints are used to make combat possible.
the 262 is a good analog - both are a generation ahead of everything else in the planeset and used sensibly neither are really beatable.
-
the 262 is a good analog - both are a generation ahead of everything else in the planeset and used sensibly neither are really beatable.
Quite the contrary, the 262 is quite an easy kill if the person doesn't know how to fly it (point being you're assuming all the people who fly the 29 will fly it correctly). Also, the 262 hasn't completely ruined or changed the game, why will the B-29?
-
With the unlocking of the B29 we will see something new to bomber perks...................
The OPC.......................... ..........
Ordnance Perk Cost
-
Quite the contrary, the 262 is quite an easy kill if the person doesn't know how to fly it
thats not a contradiction, I said "used sensibly."
point being you're assuming all the people who fly the 29 will fly it correctly
no I'm not, you inferred that. I implied that most who fly it regularly will use it sensibly. like regular 262 pilots do. like I expect the 91st BG to (Ive lost enough planes and parts to your guns to know you guys wont be upping them from capped fields or making bomb runs at 10k ;))
Also, the 262 hasn't completely ruined or changed the game, why will the B-29?
I didnt say it has, and I dont think it will.
I actually dont think it will have much impact on gameplay - the buffs we already have are capable enough to carry out the tactical stuff ingame, the strategic side of the game (where the 29 should have most impact) is almost nonexistant. I do see less buff interception happening as they will be too high and fast for most people to bother with, although that should be balanced by more people buffing to earn perks for 29s, which will involve alot more milk running. and quite a few dead Stukas :D
-
I probably kind of pushed all of your arguments in together with some other anti-B-29 folks. So I may not have read your posts as carefully as I should. Sorry bout that. :uhoh
the strategic side of the game (where the 29 should have most impact) is almost nonexistant.
I couldn't agree more.
-
based on that a formation will have 120 X 500lb bombs, a group of 3 formations will have 1080 X 500lbs of bombs ? i dont know about you but your not gonna miss much with 1080 bombs
alright, gotcha.. 3 x 120 = 1080 :aok
:( :rolleyes: :uhoh :confused: :huh :headscratch:
-
alright, gotcha.. 3 x 120 = 1080 :aok
:( :rolleyes: :uhoh :confused: :huh :headscratch:
lol, I had been completely ignoring his numbers.
It's just like in 1492 when 27 ships sailed the ocean blue.
-
Yes, but you still have the automated gun turrets.
? :huh
Electric motors make them shoot better?
wrongway
-
? :huh
Electric motors make them shoot better?
wrongway
No, but the central fire control computer was supposed to do so.
-
lol, I had been completely ignoring his numbers.
It's just like in 1492 when 27 ships sailed the ocean blue.
he missed the 3 formations total .
-
:headscratch:
-
he missed the 3 formations total .
geez dude...
1 plane = 40 bombs
3 planes (a formation) = 120 bombs
9 planes (3 formations) = 360 bombs
You didn't know when to stop multiplying.
-
duh.. wow your right i really miss calculated
-
I just wonder if Hitech is going to make the B-29 pressurized in the game like it was in real life. Enough bullet holes could cause loss of cabin pressure and then your pilot starts to black out. :joystick:
-
IIRC they still used oxygen masks for those sorts of emergencies....
-
I'm not sure if we model low pressure blackouts though........ Not all of our unpressurized birds have problems getting up to 30k. And there are countless stories from cold, light headed pilots from this era..... As Saxman points the emergency procedure, I would want to assume that our little guys do the same thing. :aok
I just wonder if Hitech is going to make the B-29 pressurized in the game like it was in real life. Enough bullet holes could cause loss of cabin pressure and then your pilot starts to black out. :joystick:
IIRC they still used oxygen masks for those sorts of emergencies....
-
I just wonder if Hitech is going to make the B-29 pressurized in the game like it was in real life. Enough bullet holes could cause loss of cabin pressure and then your pilot starts to black out. :joystick:
The B-29 was to de-pressurize before going into combat. Rapid decompression would cause all kinds of medical problems for the crew.
-
Would the B-29 absorb small caliber rounds? like a B-27 would?
-
? :huh
Electric motors make them shoot better?
wrongway
No I feel a little like you on that i'd much rather aim my guns,im sure I could do it better than a computer could.
-
No I feel a little like you on that i'd much rather aim my guns,im sure I could do it better than a computer could.
you may think you can but you can't.
ack-ack
-
Yes im sure I could,why do I say that you might ask?
I hear squeaks over the computer already,"WhAAA WhAAA the com com computer is way to accurate WhAAA WhAAA".
Then after like say 600-800 squeaks htc will lower the computer accuracy to make them be quiet.
-
Yes im sure I could,why do I say that you might ask?
I hear squeaks over the computer already,"WhAAA WhAAA the com com computer is way to accurate WhAAA WhAAA".
Then after like say 600-800 squeaks htc will lower the computer accuracy to make them be quiet.
No, you'll never aim or fire a gun more accurately then a computer controlled system. Like I said, you may think you can but you really can't.
Your example isn't a very good one because you unintentionally prove me correct. Why would squeakers whine? Because the computer controlled firing system is too accurate and want it toned down to levels where is isn't so accurate. If you were as accurate, if not more so, then there would be no cries to have the computer controlled firing system accuracy toned down.
ack-ack
-
I can feel a Star Wars quote coming.
(http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/taosw/slide05.jpg)
-
Why wouldn't it? At those climb rates; it seems totally logical. Or are you saying you do not have the patience to climb to 20k?
He probably does not.
-
The B-29 was to de-pressurize before going into combat. Rapid decompression would cause all kinds of medical problems for the crew.
Or this http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/88356/sn/1255110280/name/Krantz+dangling.jpg (http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/88356/sn/1255110280/name/Krantz+dangling.jpg)
SSgt James Krantz, 869th BS 497th Gp. Was blown through gunner blister when it came out.
He fabricated and installed a safety harness the night before the mission and his crewmates were able to pull him back in.
-
http://Krantz dangling
-
How's this for B-29 lineup? Let's have 2 version of B-29.
Make B-29A a perk bomber and B-29B a non perk bomber with the Lowest ENY.
B-29B would give new players at least an access to B29-lite but at the expense of defensive firepower, kinda like Boston III.
-
:rofl here we go again
-
I find this to be a reasonable request actually. :aok
How's this for B-29 lineup? Let's have 2 version of B-29.
Make B-29A a perk bomber and B-29B a non perk bomber with the Lowest ENY.
B-29B would give new players at least an access to B29-lite but at the expense of defensive firepower, kinda like Boston III.
-
Why? They didn't load bombers with 100% fuel during the war when it wasn't necessary.
Each and every B24 my grandfather flew, in combat mission or not, had %100 fuel. Each and every B17 he ferried from the mainland to Hickam Field had %100 fuel. Matter of fact, each of the C47's, C87's, C45's, AT6's, C3's, C61's, C78's, L4's, T15's, T20's, and T17's (that is all the aircraft I can find from his service records) had %100 fuel in them. The *only* time he does not notate %100 fuel is during his initial training hours at Tulare, CA in July of 1942. While at "basic flight school" all of his fuel and ordnance (if any) are notated.
There is a reason that aircraft took off with as much fuel as they were able, they didnt have a satellite view of the world and human error was quite common. Nothing like flying right on by your intended airfield by a few degrees and 80 miles and realizing the mistake with sundown or bad weather approaching.
-
Fuel load is dependent on bomb load.
Look at the first post. An increase of 10,000lb of bombs had the fuel reduced by ~8000lb.
-
How's this for B-29 lineup? Let's have 2 version of B-29.
Make B-29A a perk bomber and B-29B a non perk bomber with the Lowest ENY.
B-29B would give new players at least an access to B29-lite but at the expense of defensive firepower, kinda like Boston III.
The B would have to be perked as well because it's not a "lesser" model compared to the A. While it doesn't have the defensive armor or guns like the A has, it is lighter, faster and carries more of a bombload and would be just as hard if not a little tougher to shoot down than the A.
ack-ack
-
Each and every B24 my grandfather flew, in combat mission or not, had %100 fuel. Each and every B17 he ferried from the mainland to Hickam Field had %100 fuel. Matter of fact, each of the C47's, C87's, C45's, AT6's, C3's, C61's, C78's, L4's, T15's, T20's, and T17's (that is all the aircraft I can find from his service records) had %100 fuel in them. The *only* time he does not notate %100 fuel is during his initial training hours at Tulare, CA in July of 1942. While at "basic flight school" all of his fuel and ordnance (if any) are notated.
There is a reason that aircraft took off with as much fuel as they were able, they didnt have a satellite view of the world and human error was quite common. Nothing like flying right on by your intended airfield by a few degrees and 80 miles and realizing the mistake with sundown or bad weather approaching.
Bombers would not take 100% fuel for each and every missions, they had to balance fuel load with bomb load to meet the mission requirements. That would mean for long missions into Germany the bombers would take more fuel and less bombs, for shorter range missions they would take more bombs and less fuel. Look at the chart I posted, it shows the fuel and bomb load for various missions and ranges.
ack-ack
-
B-29 loadouts from the manual (AN 01-20EJ-1):
80x 100lb
56x 300lb
40x 500lb
12x 1,000lb
12x 1,600lb
8x 2,000lb
4x 4,000lb
actualy that would be 20 1000 pound bombs, the lanc gets to take off with its full 14,000 pounds of bombs. so why wont the B-29 get to take off with its 20,000 pound load.
-
Fuel load is dependent on bomb load.
Look at the first post. An increase of 10,000lb of bombs had the fuel reduced by ~8000lb.
Not always. Even short hops across the English Channel had B-26s and B-24s topping off the gas tanks. Fuel was life. You could always put 500 bombers in the air to get more bombs on target. Most times bombers carried as much fuel as possible. It's only a rare few examples with some overload bomb situation that had reduced fuel, but the fuel reduction was still the max capable (it wasn't "oh, let's only put 100 gallons in the tanks today, boys")
It's historically inaccurate to have any 4-engine bomber (hell, any 2-engine bomber) from taking off with less than full fuel.
Forget fighters for a moment. The most common retort to this is "same for fighters" but this is obviously not even comparable. We're talking apples to astronomic units.
Bombers accelerate far faster, climb way better, top out at MUCH higher alts than historically possible, and get up there in a fraction of the time, compared to historical real-world performances. In this game they also run full power despite less fuel, so even in the real world they'd climb at reduced power, cruise to targets and back, and go through the combat zone much slower, lower, and heavier than anything in Aces High.
When you have something designed to fly 1000 miles and back, but it's only going 50mi and back in-game, you will never need more than 25% ever. If we had customizable fuel loads, folks would exploit this even further, by exaggerating bomber performance with 1% fuel loads, so be thankful it's not worse than it really is.
If we get a B-29 in AH I only hope it has a 30-minute "WEP" speed after which your power drops to max continuous, as even in the real plane you risked having a meltdown in the engines if you ran them that long at full power. I'd say this plane will be faster, more effect, and more dangerous than an Ar234 because its performance will be so unhistorically "boosted" by AH modeling concessions.
-
actualy that would be 20 1000 pound bombs, the lanc gets to take off with its full 14,000 pounds of bombs. so why wont the B-29 get to take off with its 20,000 pound load.
It's not the math. It often depends on the bomb shackles available and spacing/placement inside the bomb bays.
Might hold 20,000 lbs in smaller bombs, but if you move to 1000lb bombs, you have less places to put them and less racks rated for that weight.
P.S. I'd personally say "look to the historic mission reports" to see what the common loadouts were. Just because something COULD be done doesn't mean it WAS done much.
They COULD carry atomic weapons. Doesn't mean they did very often.
-
Not always. Even short hops across the English Channel had B-26s and B-24s topping off the gas tanks.
It all depended on mission requirements and weight. Even for Operation Cobra just across the Channel, the bombers did not take a full fuel load so they could take the maximum amount of ordnance.
ack-ack
-
true but i think HtC will make it 20 1000 pound bombs. either way its probrably gonna be perked right at the 262 maybe 300 perk points.
-
It all depended on mission requirements and weight. Even for Operation Cobra just across the Channel, the bombers did not take a full fuel load so they could take the maximum amount of ordnance.
ack-ack
Would you agree that every last ounce of available weight was used for loading fuel, regardless of how short the flight?
I.E. You would never see 25% fuel loads.
-
so B-29s fly 50% fuel?
-
It's historically inaccurate to have any 4-engine bomber (hell, any 2-engine bomber) from taking off with less than full fuel.
Sure Krusty. :rolleyes: There is a max take off weight. If the a/c is carrying a full load of bombs and carrying a full load of fuel that would put it over its max take off weight.
There was a reason the chart Ack-Ack posted were produced, for all a/c.
-
Sure Krusty. :rolleyes: There is a max take off weight. If the a/c is carrying a full load of bombs and carrying a full load of fuel that would put it over its max take off weight.
There was a reason the chart Ack-Ack posted were produced, for all a/c.
and it from the looks of that B29 chart, the MTOW was 140,000 lbs.
ferry range fuel = 54900 lbs = which I assume would be 100% fuel
the "max bombs" fuel = 38690 lbs = ~70.5% fuel
I presume hitech will have 100% in the hangar equal the 70.5% if you take all the bombs. either that or he could make it interesting and let people take the full 54900 with 20000 of bombs and be over mtow, and try some logging/brush clearing off the departure end. :)