Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Helm on November 12, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
-
I could be wrong on this, but doesn't a B29 need a much longer runway to take off and land then the game currently has? I think I read this a long time ago. I may be wrong.
What i remember is that a B29 has pretty high stall speed, so getting them up and down requires a longer runway. I know that many runways in the Far-East were specifically designed to accommodate B29's. Would our current runways need a face lift to allow B29's? If so, maybe it would be a nice touch if only "Major" bases were big enough?
I'm just curious....
Helm ...out
-
That's a fine question right there!!! :salute
My assumption is that, as with other heavy bombers, it can only launch NE/NW/SE/SW..... But what will be the defining factor is the pilot's skill itself. When I was new I couldn't get B24's off the ground, and as such, with the runway distance, I have to imagine it's going to take some know-how to get the B29 up.
-
I honestly don't know if they are going to limit it to just one field or not. At the very least, you should ONLY be able to take off from a LARGE Airfield. If they limit it to one field, it's likely going to be the 163 base. At which point we will probably see just one unique airfield then have all the standard airfields we have now. Otherwise, the Large Fields are gonna need to be revamped with a longer runway. To answer your question, the current airfields cannot support the B-29. They are to short.
-
The longer diagonal runways in MA airfields are about 7,400 ft long. The B-29 needed 8,000 ft to get off at sea level when fully loaded. A higher alt field would need a longer take off run. So HTC will either have to create a runway extension for at least a few fields in each terrain or limit the maximum fuel loads it can carry in the MA. The latter shouldn't be too much of a problem, I can't see why anyone would need more than 50% fuel in a B-29 for the MA.
-
I don't see anyone using more than 25% fuel so as Greebo said it should not be a problem, if someone really wants to take 100% fuel and full ord I bet they can find another 600ft of grass or just throw it off the cliff.
-
I honestly doubt they will limit the amount of fuel it will be able to carry. So we'll be seeing new large airfields I think. I wonder if they will widen the bomber hangers though. The Lancaster doesn't have a lot of room to play with when you spawn from the hanger. Remember, some people will make a mistake when creating a mission and not set formations. There have also been more than a few times where a runway spawn was set for take off, but we ended up spawning inside a hanger.
-
. The latter shouldn't be too much of a problem, I can't see why anyone would need more than 50% fuel in a B-29 for the MA.
I would. I occasionally did long runs with 100% fuel in B-17's and used all of that fuel. With one bomb loadout posted here at 40x500 lbs bombs, I think I could make good use of more than 50% fuel in a B-29 too
Quick & rough computation: The chart AKAK posted said mission time for high speed mission 7.78hours with a fuel load of ~ 85%.
At MA fuel burn 2.0 and having 50% fuel only that would result in a flying time of ~2.3 hours. Wouldn't be enough for me.
-
'just throw it off the cliff.'
Now here's an excellent idea ;)
-
'just throw it off the cliff.'
Now here's an excellent idea ;)
:D
-
'just throw it off the cliff.'
Now here's an excellent idea ;)
I'm wondering how this will work for the SEA and the AvA.
Considering we'll probably put up a scenario shortly with the B-29 (as soon as it's released), I'm thinking most of the terrains won't be B-29 friendly.
That said, I think our trusty AvA map making guru's can figure it out. Have an airfield with a 100ft runway on a 5000ft hill. Should be enough distance to get the ole cigar airborne...
-
Good question! I know that when I fly bomber missions I like to take off from a base a good ways away and take a round about route to get to my cruising alt then make to the target. I do it out of my tendency to want to be at alt and speed before I cross into enemy territory. Now if the B-29 takes longer runways to lift and if not adjusted for and I have to take smaller fuel loads then it may affect the way I make bomber runs. I know that 100% load would cover the map and then some but at times I have used 75% load out in lancs getting to alt, making my run, and returning. I await the answer from HTC. But I think in realism in the game (as close as we can get it) the longer runways would be needed.
BigKev
-
I'm wondering how this will work for the SEA and the AvA.
Considering we'll probably put up a scenario shortly with the B-29 (as soon as it's released), I'm thinking most of the terrains won't be B-29 friendly.
That said, I think our trusty AvA map making guru's can figure it out. Have an airfield with a 100ft runway on a 5000ft hill. Should be enough distance to get the ole cigar airborne...
I wonder who will be the volunteer to test pilot that hilarity?
-
Scenarios shouldn't be a problem as the terrain designer can just tack an extra runway object onto the end of an existing airfield; instant 10,560ft runway.
That may be what happens in the MA too. There's a fundamental problem to making the existing airfields bigger as they can only be one mile square with the existing terrain setup. Adding an extra runway onto the end of an existing airfield only involves levelling that square, placing the object and making sure there are no hills in the way. Nevertheless I don't think HTC would want to redo every airfield on every MA terrain that way. So more likely they would just redo a few and restrict the B-29 to those fields. Maybe just the three uncapturable fields.
-
That would be fine with me Greebo. There are no uncapturable fields in the LW arena's though. In fact, I've seen the Nit 163 base get captured on another map. I forgot the map's name but it has that large up-side-down triangle lake in the middle of the map (this map is currently in use in the Mid-War Arena. I just checked). It was being used in one of the LW arena's a couple of weeks ago and that's when I saw the Nit 163 base was captured by the Rooks.
-
akak found and posted this in another forum.......hope you don't mind me putting this here akak.......
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/b29distance.jpg)
-
Makes you wonder what the CLASSIFIED data would read. hehe
-
I'm wondering how this will work for the SEA and the AvA.
Considering we'll probably put up a scenario shortly with the B-29 (as soon as it's released), I'm thinking most of the terrains won't be B-29 friendly.
That said, I think our trusty AvA map making guru's can figure it out. Have an airfield with a 100ft runway on a 5000ft hill. Should be enough distance to get the ole cigar airborne...
Possibly we could hang a B-29 under the new Betty bomber and drop it like a Baka?
- oldman
-
I could be wrong on this, but doesn't a B29 need a much longer runway to take off and land then the game currently has? I think I read this a long time ago. I may be wrong.
What i remember is that a B29 has pretty high stall speed, so getting them up and down requires a longer runway. I know that many runways in the Far-East were specifically designed to accommodate B29's. Would our current runways need a face lift to allow B29's? If so, maybe it would be a nice touch if only "Major" bases were big enough?
I'm just curious....flaps help
Helm ...out
-
The diagonal 7400ft runway in game is longer than a runway used by B29s at Siapan by about 140ft.
-
If you use flaps on takeoff it shouldn't be a problem.
-
If you use flaps on takeoff it shouldn't be a problem.
If you think the 29 will out climb a pregnant yak while loaded at anything above sea level, you are in for a very rude surprise. I'll be watching when you try to clear the trees at a 5000 ft field.
-
Maybe it will be restricted to just a few bases like the ME163 is.
-
here is a dumb question only vaguely on point, why is the 163 field limited? to the best of my knowledge it does not need a longer or better air field from which to launch from, so why restrict it to just one base?
lets start with a little honesty, personally i didn't vote for the B-29 and i personally think it is a ridiculous and absurd decision to even consider putting it in the game while there are so many other glaringly gaping holes in the plane/vehicle line up. i feel that the B-29 shall prove itself to be an albatross strung around the necks of those who play in the LWA's. just one example of this will be that someone will up the bird with full fuel and bombs, climb to the heavens, go to the enemy capital that is suffering from the highest ENY and because of our laser guided smart bombs will with the minimum amount of ord needed, drop first the FH for the 163 and then put down DAR. they will then sit on station and maintain this DAR black out for what, if done properly, could be hours. now doesn't that just sound like soooooooo much fun? people get all touchy and mad about the DAR failing to work properly in some areas cause they cant see the enemy for a few minutes, imagine how much you'll enjoy flying completely blind for half the day. although maybe I'm wrong about that, half the people in the MA's seem to go out of their way to avoid a fight as it is, so flying against a blind enemy will be heaven for them. endless hours of porking undefended bases......they must be wetting their pants with anticipation!
now if you think they wont do something this dweebish, think about the disappearing CV groups that someone spends hours sailing to the farthest corners of the earth.
now back to my point, if it is restricted based solely on the unique type of aircraft it is then i say yes the B-29 should get the same treatment and be restricted to the same locations as the 163. if it is because the 163 has some special needs that must be accommodated then i say that every field prepared for the B-29's unique needs should also be modified to accommodate the 163. finally if the B-29 is given full run of the shop as it were, i.e. launchable from every base, then the 163 should have its hands untied and be given the same lack of restrictions.
my point is this, the 163 and 262 are going to be the best defence against the B-29, but they will also be the greatest escorts for the B-29. they should be on station and launchable from anywhere the B-29 is allowed to, or the B-29 should suffer under the same restrictions as the 163.
this will not put and end to all the potential dweebery i forsee, but at least if the 163 threat cant be put down and kept down by one formation all at once then maybe the dweebery wont be as fun and easy for just one or two people to pull off.
just my thoughts on the issue.
-
I honestly don't know if they are going to limit it to just one field or not. At the very least, you should ONLY be able to take off from a LARGE Airfield. If they limit it to one field, it's likely going to be the 163 base. At which point we will probably see just one unique airfield then have all the standard airfields we have now. Otherwise, the Large Fields are gonna need to be revamped with a longer runway. To answer your question, the current airfields cannot support the B-29. They are to short.
Coming from a true bomber dweeb :aok
-
Possibly we could hang a B-29 under the new Betty bomber and drop it like a Baka?
- oldman
How about JATO for the 29's?
-
or just throw it off the cliff.
best idea ive seen on here :aok :banana: ;)
-
Note the cruising speed. How far would it go on the typical AH's MAX speed?
-
That's a fine question right there!!! :salute
My assumption is that, as with other heavy bombers, it can only launch NE/NW/SE/SW..... But what will be the defining factor is the pilot's skill itself. When I was new I couldn't get B24's off the ground, and as such, with the runway distance, I have to imagine it's going to take some know-how to get the B29 up.
if hes right i think befor you try to fly it and wast perks, practice offline and get off the ground and land 4 or 5 times :aok
[edit] If you'd like I can post a video, showing how to take off and land. I've got lots of time, i don't think ill find a way to make money and get on-line till my first job. plenty of time for video editing :D
-
yea a B29 with 25% or 50% fully loaded with some flaps down should not be a problem for those runways. It aint hard to get a bomber up just gotta know how to fly it when you are up. The landing that should be the easiest part.
-
Coming from a true bomber dweeb :aok
What can I say? I just love to fly bombers. :salute :x
Landing won't be a problem. Remember that you can always do stuff to slow your bomber down that would normally be bad in actuality. IE: Hard rudder action, hard banking L and R, all while under 500 ft and throttle to minimal. Take off will be a pain, especially if you don't check the ends of the runways. :lol My advice, F3/F5 from tower and check prior to lifting. :aok With 100% fuel though, you will have a very hard time getting off the ground. 50/25% fuel, yes. I can see it possible to take off from our current field setups.
-
FLOTSOM, back in the day they let the 163s up from every field for about a week. Bombers were killed left and right, and it totally unbalances the game.
-
well that is why i suggest leveling the playing field, if these ridiculous game changing bombers can up from it then the 163 should be used as a check and balance tool. tit for tat so to speak.
-
well that is why i suggest leveling the playing field, if these ridiculous game changing bombers can up from it then the 163 should be used as a check and balance tool. tit for tat so to speak.
Unfortunately the 163s won't just attack the B-29's. Unless you massively increase the perk price of the 163, it would be much more game changing than a B-29 could ever be.
-
Unfortunately the 163s won't just attack the B-29's. Unless you massively increase the perk price of the 163, it would be much more game changing than a B-29 could ever be.
but the B29 is far more game changing than the 163 could ever be. 20 163's cant down a town and a base in one pass, the B29 carries enough ord to do more than one.
in comparison the 163 would be a pesky knat to most arena game play, much like the 262 is currently. the B29 will be used as a hammer and it will, if unapposed, smash the fights down at every base a fight shows up at.
-
I would think you can get the B29 off any runway as long as you use flaps. Will have to try it out once it's availible for take off. Looking forward to using it. :O
-
I would think you can get the B29 off any runway as long as you use flaps. Will have to try it out once it's availible for take off. Looking forward to using it. :O
10 degrees may help...more than 20 degrees, will create extra drag.....
-
Now I could be wrong, but I suspect that HTC will end up having to lengthen large airfield runways to accommodate the B29. I also strongly suspect they will only be enabled at large fields.
That means that anyone willing to take 5 minutes reading the map and figuring it out can make a pretty strong guess as to exactly which field 29's are rolling from.
And while at 30k and full speed a formation of B29's may be hard for most to kill.
At 1 - 5k and climbing at under 200 mph they will be easy meat for anyone who wants to go loiter in the right location.
Catching them taking off and landing is going to be the easy way to keep them under control.
-
*squeaky voice on comms*
'I want to take a B29 to bomb the strats and I need escorts till I get high enough'
*radio silence*
5 minutes later
'Can anybody HEAR ME? I WANNA TAKE A B29 TO BOMB THE STRATS AND I NEED ESCORTS.. SOMEBODY COME HELP ME'
*radio silence*
'!#%!@!$% help me get away from my base you guys!!!!'
*silence*
'!@%! you guys all su!%!!!% and are a bunch of !%@#%! I'm taking off anyway'
-
here is a dumb question only vaguely on point, why is the 163 field limited? to the best of my knowledge it does not need a longer or better air field from which to launch from, so why restrict it to just one base?
lets start with a little honesty, personally i didn't vote for the B-29 and i personally think it is a ridiculous and absurd decision to even consider putting it in the game while there are so many other glaringly gaping holes in the plane/vehicle line up. i feel that the B-29 shall prove itself to be an albatross strung around the necks of those who play in the LWA's. just one example of this will be that someone will up the bird with full fuel and bombs, climb to the heavens, go to the enemy capital that is suffering from the highest ENY and because of our laser guided smart bombs will with the minimum amount of ord needed, drop first the FH for the 163 and then put down DAR. they will then sit on station and maintain this DAR black out for what, if done properly, could be hours. now doesn't that just sound like soooooooo much fun? people get all touchy and mad about the DAR failing to work properly in some areas cause they cant see the enemy for a few minutes, imagine how much you'll enjoy flying completely blind for half the day. although maybe I'm wrong about that, half the people in the MA's seem to go out of their way to avoid a fight as it is, so flying against a blind enemy will be heaven for them. endless hours of porking undefended bases......they must be wetting their pants with anticipation!
well that is why i suggest leveling the playing field, if these ridiculous game changing bombers can up from it then the 163 should be used as a check and balance tool. tit for tat so to speak.
Sorry I'm a little late on reading these but I have to ask about your scenarios. In your first one, do you mean dropping HQ to get rid of radar? If so, than yes, HQ raids could have an impact (of course that B-29 can't do much about goons resupplying that HQ). If you just mean the dar of the 163 field, I fail to see how this will make the bomber a "game changer." The same goes for bombing undefended bases, how is this a game changer? I can understand the whole "fill the gaps" argument, though I also have my reasons to refute that.
How can a B-29 drop a field or town in one pass? People keep talking about this, but no one has yet to show me the magic route across a field to do so.
-
but the B29 is far more game changing than the 163 could ever be. 20 163's cant down a town and a base in one pass, the B29 carries enough ord to do more than one.
in comparison the 163 would be a pesky knat to most arena game play, much like the 262 is currently. the B29 will be used as a hammer and it will, if unapposed, smash the fights down at every base a fight shows up at.
The B-29 is a slightly better B-17 in terms of game impact. The Me163, if widely available, is gameplay destroying for anybody interested in air-to-air combat over ground taking.
The two aren't even remotely in the same league.
-
I really hope the B29 isn't limited to rear fields only. On some of these large maps it can be an hour flight to the front lines and I just don't have time for that, plus my computer likes to BSOD whenever I'm midway through one of those long flights. I think HTC should add some longer runways to some of the rear fields for those that want to lift off with a full load but the B29 should be enable everywhere else as a "use at your own risk" plane.
-
Sorry I'm a little late on reading these but I have to ask about your scenarios. In your first one, do you mean dropping HQ to get rid of radar? If so, than yes, HQ raids could have an impact (of course that B-29 can't do much about goons resupplying that HQ). If you just mean the dar of the 163 field, I fail to see how this will make the bomber a "game changer." The same goes for bombing undefended bases, how is this a game changer? I can understand the whole "fill the gaps" argument, though I also have my reasons to refute that.
How can a B-29 drop a field or town in one pass? People keep talking about this, but no one has yet to show me the magic route across a field to do so.
well i based that statement upon those others in many threads who have discussed how much ord the B29 can carry. now as these people were inspired by the alleged ability of the B29 and of what they felt it would be capable of, if they exaggerated, well then shame on me for believing that bomber jocks might know what they were talking about. my bad. I'm not a bomber jock so the how was irrelevant to me, i took them at their understanding of what they could accomplish with a full load out.
why would i consider putting down the dar ring around the 163 base relevant in an over all manner? i thought in my comment i was clear that i was talking about putting down country wide radar, if i used the wrong words to impart my point then i stand corrected in my grammar but not in my point.
The B-29 is a slightly better B-17 in terms of game impact. The Me163, if widely available, is gameplay destroying for anybody interested in air-to-air combat over ground taking.
The two aren't even remotely in the same league.
163
single seater single plane
limited fuel (Full throttle fuel range is only 6.5 minutes)
limited time in the air and travel distance
limited destructive capability as it carries only 2 30mm cannons with 60 rounds each
at most the 163 is a pest in any furball, and a short lived pest at that.
if the pilot chooses to drop his alt and stay close to the ground where most furballs take place then his natural advantage of speed disappears quickly as he will either have to burn alot of fuel climbing back out or he will be limited to slow speed turn fighting. he cannot single handedly drop all of the hangers at a base, actually the 120 rounds he carries is not enough ord to drop even a single hanger.
B29
potential formation (unknown at this time what HTC will do)
abundant fuel capability for hours of flight and linger time
Payload 20,000 Pounds (i am assuming that some of this must be used for fuel) Wing Bomb Capacity pounds: 22,000
(b17 in game heaviest load out is 6 X 1000lbs bombs making it not a comparable craft. how do you claim that the 6000 pounds of the B17 is only slightly different than the 22,000 pounds carried just on the wings of the B29? if i missed something or i am mistaken in my ideas of what the load carrying ability of bombers are feel free to correct me)
destructive capability is based upon potential load out, but even 2 bombers are potentially capable of carrying enough ord to drop a bomb per building in a town. or if the bombers choose instead to fly over an enemy HQ they can potentially put down the radar leaving the enemy blind.
or a single B29, again depending on load out, could drop all of the hangers at any base and then remain on station for a prolonged period of time to ensure said hangers remain down.
if they are allowed to fly formations then litterally 1 formation of 3 bombers carries a minimum of 66,000 pounds of bombs just on their wing mounts, with the potential, as offset by fuel, of carrying up to another 60,000 pounds internally.
how does this not change the face of war?
how is it possible to compare a 163's game changing 5 minute 120 round potential to the single B29's potential hours on station and 42,000 pound bomb load????
now again i state that my knowledge of bombers and their potential load out is limited, so if i have misread or am inacurate in what the meaning of what i read actually ment then correct me.
-
FLOTSAM,
No, they are not pests in a furball. They completely alter the dynamic as you have to constantly expand your SA way out to account for the 600mph rocket or jet.
I will gladly HO an Me262 or Me163 in my Mossie to remove it from the fight so that we can actually have a fight.
Damage to ground targets is meaningless in comparison.
B-29's heaviest load is forty 500lb bombs. The 22,000lb bombs under the wing were post war. None of that 20,000lbs is fuel, just as none of the Lancaster's 14,000lbs is fuel. The B-29 will have formations in AH.
-
FLOTSAM,
No, they are not pests in a furball. They completely alter the dynamic as you have to constantly expand your SA way out to account for the 600mph rocket or jet.
I will gladly HO an Me262 or Me163 in my Mossie to remove it from the fight so that we can actually have a fight.
Agreed, to a point. i have flown with multiple enemy 163's is the area and find it fun to provoke them and try to pull them down below the alt of friendlies flying in 51's tempies 190's etc. they are short lived pests if they are caught unawares of the danger of being 4000 or 5000 feet below one of these rides, if they are smart enough not to fall for the bait then they are still just short term pests. a 262 posses a much longer and greater general B&Z threat to any furball than the 163, but so does a 51 tempest dora TA152 competantly flown spit F4u etc. its only the preceived status of the 163 that makes people jump, if they actually get over their own fear of the lil bug and just pay attention (as they should be anyways) then they should be fine.
this fact of the mental image being worse than the reality of what your encountering, i myself have proven many times over. i take a dora 51 or a 152 and boom back and forth through enemy flights of planes, normally without bothering to pull the trigger. in short moments i get them to scatter and then to start to chase me. then when they are in a gaggle concentrating on killing that horrible B&Z bastage who dared fly through them, my friendlies swoop in and decimate their ranks. last week i was responsible for the set up and destruction of 14 enemy planes in just 1 flight. so the moral to my ramble is that if you shoot down a 190 flying in a really irrational manner and the system tells you you have just shot down FLOTSOM.......well that is the systems way of saying CHECK 6 :) i have watched on many occassions when people have used 262's mossies tempies to do this exact same thing, the mental damage it does is far worse than most pilots will ever accoplish physically (Grizz m00t and a very limited few others excluded
Damage to ground targets is meaningless in comparison.
B-29's heaviest load is forty 500lb bombs. The 22,000lb bombs under the wing were post war. None of that 20,000lbs is fuel, just as none of the Lancaster's 14,000lbs is fuel. The B-29 will have formations in AH.
thanks for the clarification, but this is still a considerable amount of damage that can be delivered by one person. it is 60,000 pounds of ord, at the 500lbs bomb size that is 120 individual bombs in one formation. when it is taken into account that it will likely fly high and fast, unless multiple players are willing to remain flying at their planes ceiling on mind numbing B29 patrol then there will be no catching or defending against the B29. so unless you have alot of volunteers who have nothing better they would rather be doing with their time than floating around in the nose bleeds staring at the clouds then the only fast responce defensive system that could be made available is the 163, if it is made locally deployable that is. the 262 stands a good chance of filling this roll but the cost in perk points is going to drastically limit its availability.
-
well i based that statement upon those others in many threads who have discussed how much ord the B29 can carry. now as these people were inspired by the alleged ability of the B29 and of what they felt it would be capable of, if they exaggerated, well then shame on me for believing that bomber jocks might know what they were talking about. my bad. I'm not a bomber jock so the how was irrelevant to me, i took them at their understanding of what they could accomplish with a full load out.
why would i consider putting down the dar ring around the 163 base relevant in an over all manner? i thought in my comment i was clear that i was talking about putting down country wide radar, if i used the wrong words to impart my point then i stand corrected in my grammar but not in my point.
--
destructive capability is based upon potential load out, but even 2 bombers are potentially capable of carrying enough ord to drop a bomb per building in a town. or if the bombers choose instead to fly over an enemy HQ they can potentially put down the radar leaving the enemy blind.
or a single B29, again depending on load out, could drop all of the hangers at any base and then remain on station for a prolonged period of time to ensure said hangers remain down.
if they are allowed to fly formations then litterally 1 formation of 3 bombers carries a minimum of 66,000 pounds of bombs just on their wing mounts, with the potential, as offset by fuel, of carrying up to another 60,000 pounds internally.
how does this not change the face of war?
how is it possible to compare a 163's game changing 5 minute 120 round potential to the single B29's potential hours on station and 42,000 pound bomb load????
now again i state that my knowledge of bombers and their potential load out is limited, so if i have misread or am inacurate in what the meaning of what i read actually ment then correct me.
I don't know what HTC will make available for a bomb load, but if all the talk is correct, 40 x 500lb will be a common load out. Destructive, sure, but amount of ord doesn't mean this bomber can inflict so much more damage on a single pass than any other heavy bomber we currently have. Let's say I take a Lancaster up with 14 x 1000lbs x 3 planes = 42,000 lbs of ord. Now I'm not positive on this part, but isn't taking down the HQ take 37,000 lbs? Technically, a single pilot in the Lancaster should be able to take down the HQ, but how often does that happen? Two pilots should easily be able to do it, so why does it only happen every once in a while, and usually only with a large raid? There are many factors, including the puffy ack hitting the bombers, the 163s which even in the hands of an amateur like me can be dangerous for slow level bombers, and most importantly, getting every bomb to impact the HQ is difficult. Even at a delay of 0.05, all the bombs can't get out in time to hit the target. Also, there is a little scatter in your bombs, especially at 30,000 feet. The 91st usually takes 1000 lbers to drop on target rather than 500 lbers if we're going to be dropping at a higher altitude.
As for fields, even a B-17 can take down all the fighter hangers and vehicle hangers at a small field with 12 x 500 lbs, but not in a single pass. Bombs fall under a bomber, and a bomber flies over a target in a relatively strait line. Show me on this large field how you can drop all the fighter hangers in a single pass with as many ord as you want.
(http://a.imageshack.us/img291/6107/91stlfield.png)
I can't see how you can do it in less than 3 passes, and considering it takes about 5 minutes to go out, turn around, and recalibrate (not to mention getting a new line up on multiple targets); you could only prevent fighters from upping for a max time of 5 minutes. That 5 minutes assumes perfect line-ups and perfect calibrations; difficult after a tight turn.
I haven't heard any good bomber pilot exaggerate what can be done with this plane. I've heard many doomsayer's predictions about the plane, but not a good pilot thinking he can take down an entire field in a single pass. The bomber pilots I've talked too are excited about the B-29, but realistic about it's capabilities.
-
I don't know what HTC will make available for a bomb load, but if all the talk is correct, 40 x 500lb will be a common load out. Destructive, sure, but amount of ord doesn't mean this bomber can inflict so much more damage on a single pass than any other heavy bomber we currently have. Let's say I take a Lancaster up with 14 x 1000lbs x 3 planes = 42,000 lbs of ord. Now I'm not positive on this part, but isn't taking down the HQ take 37,000 lbs? Technically, a single pilot in the Lancaster should be able to take down the HQ, but how often does that happen? Two pilots should easily be able to do it, so why does it only happen every once in a while, and usually only with a large raid? There are many factors, including the puffy ack hitting the bombers, the 163s which even in the hands of an amateur like me can be dangerous for slow level bombers, and most importantly, getting every bomb to impact the HQ is difficult. Even at a delay of 0.05, all the bombs can't get out in time to hit the target. Also, there is a little scatter in your bombs, especially at 30,000 feet. The 91st usually takes 1000 lbers to drop on target rather than 500 lbers if we're going to be dropping at a higher altitude.
As for fields, even a B-17 can take down all the fighter hangers and vehicle hangers at a small field with 12 x 500 lbs, but not in a single pass. Bombs fall under a bomber, and a bomber flies over a target in a relatively strait line. Show me on this large field how you can drop all the fighter hangers in a single pass with as many ord as you want.
(http://a.imageshack.us/img291/6107/91stlfield.png)
I can't see how you can do it in less than 3 passes, and considering it takes about 5 minutes to go out, turn around, and recalibrate (not to mention getting a new line up on multiple targets); you could only prevent fighters from upping for a max time of 5 minutes. That 5 minutes assumes perfect line-ups and perfect calibrations; difficult after a tight turn.
I haven't heard any good bomber pilot exaggerate what can be done with this plane. I've heard many doomsayer's predictions about the plane, but not a good pilot thinking he can take down an entire field in a single pass. The bomber pilots I've talked too are excited about the B-29, but realistic about it's capabilities.
agreed 1 pass was an exaggerations and i should have known better than to listen. unfortunately i flew as a B.O.P. for a short time, but in that short time i watched what thundregg could do with a single flight of bombers. his accuracy with a bomb is retardedly disgusting! hell modern day smart bomb makers need to talk to that man about how to aim properly!!!!!
as per the AH site the B24 carries 8000 pounds the B17 carries 6000 the Lanc carries 9000 pounds, if these are inaccurate then my lack of knowledge falls on the site. but if as you think the B29 will carry 20000lbs then it is over double the ord of each of the others. this makes the potential damage caused by the B29 much greater than any of the others when taken in comparison to the rest.
my point is not to argue against the B29, its here like it or not. my point is that if left without a reasonable defensive strategy they will dominate the game and will destroy the playability for alot of other players.
i will be very surprised if this plane does not change the game. if it goes unopposed and doesn't change the game then those who fly it don't have a clue how to use it to hurt the enemy. this would be the equivilant to using a 262 just to take out ship mounted ack, funny to watch but not of much use. i dont see that mentality lasting very long. you are talking about a game that has players that will hide CV's for 8 or more hours just because it P's off other people. the B29 will be used to destroy playability for others if its given a chance too.
-
The Lanc's 9 x 1000lb also includes a 4000lb bomb. The Lanc has an option for 14 x 1000lb.
-
Just like every other new plane the B29s will be seen frequently at first and then die down in numbers. Except for the Thndregg missions of course. The arena will not change much at all so save your breathe.
-
The Lanc can carry 14 x 1000 lbs bombs, not sure why the Aces High page says otherwise but swing by it next time you're in the clipboard hanger and you can see.
I don't think it will change gameplay because I'm not sure it's the best tool for attacking an airfield. Most people assume the B-29 will be perked, I agree it will, and should be. That perking, IMO, is a major disincentive. Even if the B-29 is perked at something like 75 a plane (a lowball estimate IMO), that's 225 perks for a formation. Even experienced bombers aren't going to want to loose those perks willy-nilly, that's why you don't often see a 262 de-acking a CV, even though there are plenty of players who have the perks to spare. Back to my original point, I don't think players are going to be as willing to loose their B-29s as they would a set of 17s or 24s. Soo, that will push them up higher, 25-30k, and that takes a lot of time. Why would I take a formation of perked planes, and take the time to take them up to 25-30k, when I can take a free formation of B-17s that will do the same job at 15-18k? I think the B-29 would be best used as a strat buster, that's why I hope the B-29 is accompanied by major strategic gameplay changes.
-
Some of the Lancaster's bomb load configurations from http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm
Bomber Command Executive Codeword: "ARSON"
Target Type: General
14 Small Bomb Containers (SBC), each loaded with 236 x 4 lb No. 15 Incendiary and No. 15X Explosive Incendiary (1 in 10 mix) bombs. Total bomb load: 14,000 lbs.
(http://www.lancaster-archive.com/b1.jpg)
Bomber Command Executive Codeword: "ABNORMAL"
Target Type: Factories, Rail yards, Dockyards
14 x 1,000 lb Medium Case (MC), General Purpose (GP) RDX or US short-finned High Explosive (HE) bombs. With mix of instantaneous (nose-armed) and long-delay (up to 144 hours, tail-armed) fusing.
(http://www.lancaster-archive.com/b2.jpg)
Bomber Command Executive Codeword: "No-BALL" (for V1 sites)
Target Type: V1 and radar sites, armour concentrations
1 x 4,000 lb HC, impact fused bomb (Cookie) and up to 18 x 500 lb MC or GP bombs, short-finned with mixed instantaneous and delay fusing.
(http://www.lancaster-archive.com/b7.jpg)
-
How many players are really willing to do what it takes to mount a strategic raid? You have to start very far back so you cross into enemy territory at altitude (22k min), you may have to fight your way in and out and then find a safe field to land in. This all takes a lot of time and most folks seem more interested in getting into action faster. Do you all think that will really change with the B-29? I think it will be perked, but I hope only moderately so. I want to be able to fly it on squad ops nights. If it is really pricey then most folks are going to be very unwilling or unable to take it up and lose those points. Why put it in the game in such a way that no one will use it? What is the 234 perked at?
I think the 29 is generating a good bit of buzz and anticipation. Love it or hate it, that is a good thing for the game.
-
I'm not sure if anyone has come up with this quote, but it comes from a wikipedia article on the Island on Tinian.
Tinian was captured by the United States in July 1944 in the Battle of Tinian. The island was transformed into the busiest airbase of the war, with two B-29 airfields (West and North) having six 8,500 foot (2700 m) runways. The four runways at the North Field are now overgrown and abandoned. The West Field runways are still in use as the Tinian International Airport.[3]
-
How many players are really willing to do what it takes to mount a strategic raid? You have to start very far back so you cross into enemy territory at altitude (22k min), you may have to fight your way in and out and then find a safe field to land in. This all takes a lot of time and most folks seem more interested in getting into action faster. Do you all think that will really change with the B-29? I think it will be perked, but I hope only moderately so. I want to be able to fly it on squad ops nights. If it is really pricey then most folks are going to be very unwilling or unable to take it up and lose those points. Why put it in the game in such a way that no one will use it? What is the 234 perked at?
I think the 29 is generating a good bit of buzz and anticipation. Love it or hate it, that is a good thing for the game.
I'd definitely be willing to do those long-duration bomber missions. Not every time I fly, but probably once or twice a week (when I start flying again, that is...).
-
How many players are really willing to do what it takes to mount a strategic raid?
A question that is just as good is, "How many are willing to do it repeatedly?".
It's very hard to get the numbers, if not nearly impossible, to badly cripple the Capital in a single raid. I'm not talking about, during Titanic Tuesday. I'm talking about, during a standard day. At this point, it falls on players that are not only willing to fly a long duration mission, but to do it 5-10 times (depending on numbers). If the Capital is a good distance away (5-8 sectors away from the front lines, one way), you must have the numbers (12+ I recommend), or you are wasting your time. If it isn't too far away (2-4 sectors one way), then this setup could work. When it is just a few of you (2-4), then you'll have to chance it, take off from the nearest base and go in at 12.5 - 17.5k, otherwise you won't inflict enough damage before the Capital starts to repair itself. If you have a decent amount (5-8), then you can probably take off from a deeper base and get to 20+k (no higher than 22.5) and make your run. A good amount (9+), you can probably afford to take off at a base of your choosing, reach a decent alt (25K +/-) and make your run. An 8th Air Force amount (15+), you will have little trouble in doing an extreme amount of damage at just about any altitude.
I have yet to meet people that would (or do) regularly do runs like this, at least on the Rook side. I doubt the 91st (Bish) do this. I know they up regularly, but to hit bases. A solid target, don't get me wrong. And let me get something crystal clear, I am NOT saying anything bad about them. Maybe I have not been on when they do a raid on a Capital, but I do not see them doing it on a regular basis. Do correct me if I'm wrong. :aok :salute I am not aware of any bomber groups in the Nit side, at least not with the numbers of the 91st. So I'm at a blank when it comes to them...
Personally, I am hoping that it is the B-29A we will be getting.
Applying the B-29, a third question arises for a strategic operation; "How many would be willing/able to risk this many perks to complete the Operation?"
I am one such person. :aok :salute
Hmm...we get both the B-29A and the B-29B. Which would you think, would be perked higher? I think the A would receive the higher perk tag, as it has a lot of defensive guns, while the B, even if it is a little faster, would have the lower price. My guess is, B-29A: 100 perks per plane. B-29B: 25+/- less than the A.
-
Our strat raids are rare because the effect on gameplay is nill. We enjoy the historical aspect of the game but also try to have an impact on the big picture. If strat was worth anything, you might see more of these raids.
-
thats what they should do is make strategic raids worth it. maybe they might add it when they add the B-29.
-
A question that is just as good is, "How many are willing to do it repeatedly?".
It's very hard to get the numbers, if not nearly impossible, to badly cripple the Capital in a single raid. I'm not talking about, during Titanic Tuesday. I'm talking about, during a standard day. At this point, it falls on players that are not only willing to fly a long duration mission, but to do it 5-10 times (depending on numbers). If the Capital is a good distance away (5-8 sectors away from the front lines, one way), you must have the numbers (12+ I recommend), or you are wasting your time. If it isn't too far away (2-4 sectors one way), then this setup could work. When it is just a few of you (2-4), then you'll have to chance it, take off from the nearest base and go in at 12.5 - 17.5k, otherwise you won't inflict enough damage before the Capital starts to repair itself. If you have a decent amount (5-8), then you can probably take off from a deeper base and get to 20+k (no higher than 22.5) and make your run. A good amount (9+), you can probably afford to take off at a base of your choosing, reach a decent alt (25K +/-) and make your run. An 8th Air Force amount (15+), you will have little trouble in doing an extreme amount of damage at just about any altitude.
I have yet to meet people that would (or do) regularly do runs like this, at least on the Rook side. I doubt the 91st (Bish) do this. I know they up regularly, but to hit bases. A solid target, don't get me wrong. And let me get something crystal clear, I am NOT saying anything bad about them. Maybe I have not been on when they do a raid on a Capital, but I do not see them doing it on a regular basis. Do correct me if I'm wrong. :aok :salute I am not aware of any bomber groups in the Nit side, at least not with the numbers of the 91st. So I'm at a blank when it comes to them...
Personally, I am hoping that it is the B-29A we will be getting.
Applying the B-29, a third question arises for a strategic operation; "How many would be willing/able to risk this many perks to complete the Operation?"
I am one such person. :aok :salute
Hmm...we get both the B-29A and the B-29B. Which would you think, would be perked higher? I think the A would receive the higher perk tag, as it has a lot of defensive guns, while the B, even if it is a little faster, would have the lower price. My guess is, B-29A: 100 perks per plane. B-29B: 25+/- less than the A.
Actually, back when I was running the 303rd BG with Overlag and others, these kinds of runs were our bread-and-butter. I can count on one hand the number of squad runs we made that were LESS than an an hour in duration. Granted, we were a small squad as a result of this bizarre fetish, and eventually petered out. However, hopefully I'll soon have enough money regularly to come back in time for the B-29 and start the old long-range strat-runs again!
-
B29 will be a pain, but if 163s could up from every base, that would suck. Guys fly forever on that 6min of fuel. I believe the actual plane you didnt manipulate the throttle, i think the engines were lite and you rode the rocket up to alt and then dove down after the fuel was gone for the attack. No gliding then boosting gliding then boosting. And in the game they are one the most maneuverable planes in the game, a huge pain in any fight. And they are tiny and hard to hit with guns. I like the idea of only b29s being able to up from large bases. or at least limit it somehow. Somebody said 262 would be good escort and intercept for these high alt uber bombers from my experience the 262 sucks above 25k. almost all fighters suck up at 30k, except for the 163 and even that one you have to be careful maneuvering that high. my 2 cents.
-
The Me163 had a throttle.
“The engines were completely throttleable. Acceleration at first seemed surprisingly slow. The aircraft was poised on small wheel blocks, and when you went from ground idle to full power, the dolly wheels would roll over the blocks, and it took a while to build up flight speed. Once airborne, you accelerated to speed for best climb.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm
-
Just make all defensive guns not to hit at the same point, and most low unescorted buff raids would end like they did in the schweinfurt raid.
-
Just make all defensive guns not to hit at the same point, and most low unescorted buff raids would end like they did in the schweinfurt raid.
Most low unescorted buff raids in AH already do end that way. Or better: they end worse.
-
Having 163's up from any base would suck. They may only be able to fly for 6 mins on fuel at full throttle but you don't need to( and at altitude you can't) fly at full throttle. It's just to fast and the
controls lock up. I've taken 163's and flown them for several sectors at 25K at about 10 -15% throttle doing well over 500 mph. Even in combat you don't need full throttle. Real flight times can be up to
20 mins, more than enough to totally wreak havoc on every furball.
-
The Me163 had a throttle.
“The engines were completely throttleable. Acceleration at first seemed surprisingly slow. The aircraft was poised on small wheel blocks, and when you went from ground idle to full power, the dolly wheels would roll over the blocks, and it took a while to build up flight speed. Once airborne, you accelerated to speed for best climb.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm
very cool article, thanks for the link.
-
Ummm - what if the B-29 was not allow to have a formation??? One is deadly enough right?
-
what if they were just teasing you all.....and gonna act like politicians......they promised this.....but you're never gonna see it......you'll have to make due....in fact, they're gonna cut out your favorite ride. :devil :angel: :bolt: :noid
-
The posts on this board are always worth a good chuckle! :D
B-29s will have formations because without formations its just a four-engined 38 without the nose stinger.
Nice fantasies from all you "uber fighter pilots." One little change has you all wetting your pants? :rofl
-
akak found and posted this in another forum.......hope you don't mind me putting this here akak.......
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/b29distance.jpg)
No one has read CAP1 chart on page1?
>>7825ft ASL is required to T/O to clear 50ft AGL (Trees)
>>5230ft ASL is required to lift the wheels of the ground fully loaded... Just pop down 2-3(or5) notches of flaps at the end of the runway and jump off your seat with your co-pilot to help it get off the ground faster. That's more than enough for me... The carrier landing is a piece of cake after that :noid
>>The 500ft/min rate-of-climb is at normal power.
Ummm - what if the B-29 was not allow to have a formation??? One is deadly enough right?
Leave the formations on. The more there are, the more I can have the utter satisfaction of shooting one down. Most won't be at operating altitudes anyway.
-
haha its so easy to kill a 190 in a b17, just imagine a B29 lol. cant wait to see this plane haha freakin huge too
-
haha its so easy to kill a 190 in a b17, just imagine a B29 lol. cant wait to see this plane haha freakin huge too
its biger then a B-17 but not by mutch
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-36-DFSC8408873_JPG.jpg)
B-29 is the one with the [ O ] on the tail :D
B-17 just over
B-36 just under... ooh only 5 (or so) year and it would be in the war
-
ya i know that, nice lil chart there
-
i just dont care, i dont think the B29 is a smart plane to put in the game right now.
Other more capable FIGHTERS should be put in
-
Go B-29, Go! :x Fighters, Smighter's... We could use more BOMBERS. HAHA! I'm hoping for an Italian Bomber next or Soviet, but will keep wishing for the He-111. If you put the He-111 into another poll though, I will auto vote on it. :D I want my He-111. :airplane:
(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc473/UnkShadow/he111-19.jpg)
Back to topic:
I wonder if the tail gun will be split like on a fighter (IE: You can fire either the .50's and/or the 20mm) or not. How would that affect the other guns on your plane, as well as your drones? If they give you the option, I think it would be coded so that if you are just firing your .50's, that your drones will do the same. The same the other way around and regardless of how you fire your tail gun, the other guns will fire normally unless you want to fire your tail gun from that plane specifically. Also makes me wonder how it's going to be coded if you have a gunner with you......
-
B-36 first went operational in 1948.
My Dad was Gen'l Lemay's personal intelligence briefing officer for years while at SAC and we kids got treats now and then, so I've been on every WW2 - 1960 bomber in the USAF ToE. The B-36 was something else with JATO.
When the strategic targets were grouped together here in the game there were plenty of 30k-7 sector raids. At least for a while. Being able to really hurt the enemy is quite an incentive and everyone will want the experience of trying it at least once, generally speaking. Perks will limit the usage of course, especially for squads. I don't think it will ruin the game. Losing radar, fuel, etc. for any time period can really hurt another country's efforts. That's kinda cool.
Perhaps finally we can put an end to Bishism and Rookery and make the world safe for Knightocracy :rock
I'd like to introduce Pres. Bill Clinton to answer your questions now, thanks. :bolt:
-
The b-29 will attract the gaming crowd and that's what pays for our shenanigans :confused:
-
The b-29 will attract the gaming crowd and that's what pays for our shenanigans :confused:
We all are the gaming crowd.
-
We all are the gaming crowd.
THIS IS NO GAME! THIS IS REAAL! :furious
-
There is no spoon....
-
There is no spoon....
:aok
-
I don't see anyone using more than 25% fuel so as Greebo said it should not be a problem, if someone really wants to take 100% fuel and full ord I bet they can find another 600ft of grass or just throw it off the cliff.
Funny thing is... its true. fina another 600 ft of grass? lol :rofl
-
its biger then a B-17 but not by mutch
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-36-DFSC8408873_JPG.jpg)
and the Short Stirling is right in between :noid
-
:D
lolz :rofl
-
Look forward to air spawns in the Special Events Arenas!
-
ya i know that, nice lil chart there
no i dont know the nice little chart i have no clue what your talking about... what about it?
-
Just did a test, alt 0.1, fuel 50%, loadout 40/500lbs
using auto takeoff, full takeoff power, needed about 800 feet before wheels up
was fun to watch from f3 lookiing down on the plane.
wonder how much with a 100 % fuel load, will be testing later.
DHawk
edit: update, add about 2000 more feet of runway with full fuel and 40/500 lbs
-
Look forward to air spawns in the Special Events Arenas!
Looking forward to air spawns in late war.
-
The longer diagonal runways in MA airfields are about 7,400 ft long. The B-29 needed 8,000 ft to get off at sea level when fully loaded. A higher alt field would need a longer take off run. So HTC will either have to create a runway extension for at least a few fields in each terrain or limit the maximum fuel loads it can carry in the MA. The latter shouldn't be too much of a problem, I can't see why anyone would need more than 50% fuel in a B-29 for the MA.
Yep, I've found out in the practice arena at the large AF's you tend to run out of RW on ATO.
-
What i found as the best way, is to hold the brakes and throttle up with WEP, then release the brakes. once you get it to the skid marks on the other end of the runway gently pull back on the stick and up it slowly. if you practice it enough then you will have no problem getting it up and over the trees. practice it with one B-29 for a bit till your comfortable, then try a formation.
-
Looking forward to air spawns in late war.
Has anyone tried an airspawn in a B29 in the TA yet? Can you get the thing flying before the wings rip off?
-
Has anyone tried an airspawn in a B29 in the TA yet? Can you get the thing flying before the wings rip off?
Off line I did, on the second try.
50% fuel, 80 100pound bombs, I think.
wrongway