Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: viperzero on January 26, 2011, 10:52:07 AM
-
does anyone know when the B-29 will be available in the game?????
-
2 weeks :old:
-
2 weeks :old:
Really :O
:)
-
Special intelligence coming from our SAPP spies have confirmed this
-
Special intelligence coming from our SAPP spies have confirmed this
well at least its coming and the wait will be worthwhile :)
-
well at least its coming and the wait will be worthwhile :)
you sure you have the perks needed ? :)
-
you sure you have the perks needed ? :)
perks im not sure.....if noti can always re-download the game when the superfort. arrives....lol if only i had a time machine
-
perks im not sure.....if noti can always re-download the game when the superfort. arrives....lol if only i had a time machine
He meant the number in the hanger underneath the bomber catagorie, the b29 is gonna be perked like a 262
-
2 weeks :old:
I heard that to. :x
:bolt:
-
Special intelligence coming from our SAPP spies have confirmed this
Right, but we all know the credibility of that information. I mean, well-mixed margaritas and accurate information don't really...blend. :cheers:
-
So is this obsolete now? :cry
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/Pannono/nookie.gif)
-
So is this obsolete now? :cry
Not until i get my nookie!11!!!!!1! :bhead :bhead :mad: :mad: :mad: :huh :aok :furious :furious :noid :noid
-
He meant the number in the hanger underneath the bomber catagorie, the b29 is gonna be perked like a 262
oh.....i feel stupid i dont pay much attention to that i only pay atention to the ppl i shoot down in flames in my gunsight :D
-
I'm not sure which will be worse, the # of perks or the eny on it. I'll park a 29 on the runway 3 hours before usage if I have to lol.
The more important question is are we gonna get the 20,000 lb payload? cause that'd be pimp.
-
Not until i get my nookie!11!!!!!1! :bhead :bhead :mad: :mad: :mad: :huh :aok :furious :furious :noid :noid
:joystick:
-
:lol
-
does anyone know when the B-29 will be available in the game?????
it's allready here, go check your hanger again! :O
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/htchangar-1.jpg)
:noid :lol
-
I think some people are going to be very disappointed in the B29. Yes, it carries quite the payload and yes it can go 350mph at 28k (or whatever its best speed/alt is), but it will make the Lancaster look like a fast climber (figuratively) and it is going to be a very big target.
I see it being launched from waaaay back behind the front lines at the higher alt bases just to get it to a feasible bombing altitude. Hopefully, the perk price will be enough to make people think twice from using it as a "B29-Stuka". :pray
At first report of a "B29 at 20k over X, heading Y", I'll be sure and hop into a NiK2 "George" and climb on up for some late war PTO goodness. ;)
-
I think some people are going to be very disappointed in the B29. Yes, it carries quite the payload and yes it can go 350mph at 28k (or whatever its best speed/alt is), but it will make the Lancaster look like a fast climber (figuratively) and it is going to be a very big target.
I see it being launched from waaaay back behind the front lines at the higher alt bases just to get it to a feasible bombing altitude. Hopefully, the perk price will be enough to make people think twice from using it as a "B29-Stuka". :pray
At first report of a "B29 at 20k over X, heading Y", I'll be sure and hop into a NiK2 "George" and climb on up for some late war PTO goodness. ;)
personally i dont feel the b29 deserves to be perked at all, sure it has a huge bombload, but its SLOW climbrate would most likely keep the b17/b24's in use. i mainly see the b29 becoming a city/HQ attacking bomber only. it wouldnt be good for base capturing really, a group of b17's could have a town droped before a b29 even got high enough for a proper bombrun. may be good for low-alt carpet bombing, but as stated it will be a HUGE target for ack/flak to hit.
if you plan on attacking b29's with nikkis for historical fun, then allow me to suggest to you the japanese way of attacking b29s :salute
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/japanese-fighter-tactics-b29-superfortress.jpg)
also, i demand dive flaps on my b29,. because i WILL be divebombing tiger tanks with it, just to cause the trillions of whine threads on the boards about it :devil
-
it's allready here, go check your hanger again! :O
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/htchangar-1.jpg)
:noid :lol
are you pulling my leg......that fast
-
They should consider the ability to model range computing gunsites in the perk price. The guns on a Superfort were quite deadly even at long range, not like a 17 or a 24. The fire control system was like the k14, but considering the turrets positions and orientations. If AH2 does not model this feature then the perk cost will need to reflect that. I don't think the climb rate will be as bad as people think unless there is a full fuel load take.
-
I expect it will be at least a couple of years before we see the B-29 so there's plenty of time to save up bomber perks.
-
Soon!
+1 post count
-
heinkel 111 is MUCH better than the b29 lol :rock but b29 is ok too :old:
-
heinkel 111 is MUCH better than the b29 lol :rock but b29 is ok too :old:
yeah the he111 is good but it can't drop a nuke and doesnt have effective defensive armament by that i mean it only has three mg's so there are alot of places a bandit could go and shoot you to pieces because they are out of the he111's arc or the defenive weapons
-
yeah the he111 is good but it can't drop a nuke and doesnt have effective defensive armament by that i mean it only has three mg's so there are alot of places a bandit could go and shoot you to pieces because they are out of the he111's arc or the defenive weapons
The B-29 in game will not have a nuke.
-
The B-29 in game will not have a nuke.
awh man :cry that sucks
-
awh man :cry that sucks
Did you honestly think it would be?
-
awh man :cry that sucks
noob alert :bolt:
-
Did you honestly think it would be?
honestly i wasnt sure
-
noob alert :bolt:
yes im a noob so what we all were at one time :mad:
-
yes im a noob so what we all were at one time :mad:
ok atleast you say you are i have no problem with you :D
-
ok atleast you say you are i have no problem with you :D
haha thanks :D srry for getting a litle steamed
-
noob alert :bolt:
Give the guy a break, your a noob as well :neener:
:D
-
Give the guy a break, your a noob as well :neener:
:D
yep i bet in a dogfight he would own me :D now in buff :noid
-
yep i bet in a dogfight he would own me :D now in buff....well....he would own me as well :noid
fixed :devil :bolt:
-
fixed :devil :bolt:
fixed machfly = machtroll
-
I don't quite understand the 'fixed joke'
fixed. :bolt:
Should have done this:
blah blah blah
hint (look at name)
:D
-
yep i bet in a dogfight he would own me :D now in buff :noid
:joystick:
i highly doubt that lol
-
awh man :cry that sucks
Let the first of many to come from this day forth be noted and recorded.
-
:joystick:
i highly doubt that lol
i dont :noid
-
I belive the reason its taken so long to get the 29 is the "When and can we have the nuke? :pray".
Quite frankly it would be annoying being asked every 5 mins "Can we have the nuke"--------5 mins-------"Can we have the nuke"------------5 mins---------"Can we have the nuke"----------5 mins--------------"Can we have the nuke"--Htc's reply "NO will you stfu about that stupid nuke!"----person asking for nukes reply " :cry :cry"
-
I belive the reason its taken so long to get the 29 is the "When and can we have the nuke? :pray".
Quite frankly it would be annoying being asked every 5 mins "Can we have the nuke"--------5 mins-------"Can we have the nuke"------------5 mins---------"Can we have the nuke"----------5 mins--------------"Can we have the nuke"--Htc's reply "NO will you stfu about that stupid nuke!"----person asking for nukes reply " :cry :cry"
Joking?
The B-29 is probably going to be the biggest and most detailed aircraft the HTC has yet created. Considering they had other aircraft in front of it, I'm not at all surprised we haven't seen it yet.
-
I belive the reason its taken so long to get the 29 is the "When and can we have the nuke? :pray".
Quite frankly it would be annoying being asked every 5 mins "Can we have the nuke"--------5 mins-------"Can we have the nuke"------------5 mins---------"Can we have the nuke"----------5 mins--------------"Can we have the nuke"--Htc's reply "NO will you stfu about that stupid nuke!"----person asking for nukes reply " :cry :cry"
dirt im sorry too burst your bubbel but htc will find some strange way to perk it at like 900 perks for 3 buffs when the b29 will come in the game ppl will be like omg it xxx number of perks :cry i think the b29 should not be perked
-
fixed machfly = machtroll
wow, supersonic troll, that's new :)
-
wow, supersonic troll, that's new :)
yaaaay! im going 670 mph :airplane:
-
good for you... were alll going half-a-million mile an hour thourhg space. but i might as well ask... were you in a plane when that happened? :)
-
If you want high speeds, go play Orbiter.
And also, to all of you massaging your egos in this thread: read Jayhawk's signature. That quote from Skuzzy applies to you too.
-
If you want high speeds, go play Orbiter.
And also, to all of you massaging your egos in this thread: read Jayhawk's signature. That quote from Skuzzy applies to you too.
to me most of the time when i call some one a troll im pulling there leg
-
i dont :noid
if only i had $15 we could find out who would kill who :cheers:
-
dirt im sorry too burst your bubbel but htc will find some strange way to perk it at like 900 perks for 3 buffs when the b29 will come in the game ppl will be like omg it xxx number of perks :cry i think the b29 should not be perked
Ehh it was a joke and yeah it will be just like our gv's they always find something over-perk them and screw there performance.
-
the b29 doesnt deserve to be perked because of it's bombload alone.
theres only a 6,000lb difference between the lancasters 14,000lb bombload and the B29's 20,000lb bombload.
yet there is a 8,000lb bombload difference between the b17's 6,000lb bombload and the lanc's 14,000lb bombload.
and the 6,000lb bombload difference is the same between the b24 and lanc.
so if we're perking bombers due to there difference between bombloads. then the lancaster should of been perked this whole time. due to its huge 8,000lb difference between the b17's and lanc's bombloads.
(among heavy bombers)
so if you want the b29 perked when it comes simply because of its bombload, then perk the lancaster right now for its bombload.
-
the b29 doesnt deserve to be perked because of it's bombload alone.
theres only a 6,000lb difference between the lancasters 14,000lb bombload and the B29's 20,000lb bombload.
yet there is a 8,000lb bombload difference between the b17's 6,000lb bombload and the lanc's 14,000lb bombload.
and the 6,000lb bombload difference is the same between the b24 and lanc.
so if we're perking bombers due to there difference between bombloads. then the lancaster should of been perked this whole time. due to its huge 8,000lb difference between the b17's and lanc's bombloads.
(among heavy bombers)
so if you want the b29 perked when it comes simply because of its bombload, then perk the lancaster right now for its bombload.
It doesn't matter I have 50 cookies down that its perked and I know HTC far to good to say it wont be, Like I said The gv's get overperked and they underperform its ridiculous. But it happens and I don't know what we could do to stop it.
-
It doesn't matter I have 50 cookies down that its perked and I know HTC far to good to say it wont be, Like I said The gv's get overperked and they underperform its ridiculous. But it happens and I don't know what we could do to stop it.
yes, it probally will be perked, not because it DESERVES to be, but more so Hitech doesnt get as many "b29 is overused!" whines as we all know he would get if it wasent perked.
-
the b29 doesnt deserve to be perked because of it's bombload alone.
theres only a 6,000lb difference between the lancasters 14,000lb bombload and the B29's 20,000lb bombload.
yet there is a 8,000lb bombload difference between the b17's 6,000lb bombload and the lanc's 14,000lb bombload.
and the 6,000lb bombload difference is the same between the b24 and lanc.
so if we're perking bombers due to there difference between bombloads. then the lancaster should of been perked this whole time. due to its huge 8,000lb difference between the b17's and lanc's bombloads.
(among heavy bombers)
so if you want the b29 perked when it comes simply because of its bombload, then perk the lancaster right now for its bombload.
I agree with you, alone it isn't a factor, but it's not alone. I think though this issue of maximum ordnance capacity will be addressed though whenever the perked ordnance system is initiated (which is believed to include perking some of the lancaster's heavier loadouts as well).
-
yes, it probally will be perked, not because it DESERVES to be, but more so Hitech doesnt get as many "b29 is overused!" whines as we all know he would get if it wasent perked.
HA good luck with "Its overused" Hell half the people in AH are against it and probably wont use it and another 25% dont really give a crap either way. And think about it If people were not so lazy they would practice on how to kill buffs; it's not hard. As well as the fact that it will lose popularity quickly due to its so climb rate and need of longer runways.
-
I agree with you, alone it isn't a factor, but it's not alone. I think though this issue of maximum ordnance capacity will be addressed though whenever the perked ordnance system is initiated (which is believed to include perking some of the lancaster's heavier loadouts as well).
i cant really see a reason to perk the b29 tho.
-its climb rate is very slow (i believe people were saying it takes 60 mins to reach 20k?) even with 50% fuel it will be a slow climber, much slower than say b17's and b24s. i think this will nock it out of the running for quick responce bombings on close bases. you'd have to launch these from a much farther allied base to rise to an appropriate hieght, pretty much you could have a b17 to atleast 10k and doing its bomb run before you can even get the 29 level at 10k.
i see the b29 become 4 things.
1. a major city attacking aircraft.
2. an HQ bombing aircraft
3. a low alt-carpet bombing gv planes.
4.used by score hores who like to up in bombers and just randomly bomb towns to score bomber points.
-armament. this may be a reason why it deserves to be perked, but why? it only has 1 20mm i believe in the tail (same as the betty) and it has no nose or waist guns. so if you can line your plane up right, the b29 will be easy to HO or strafe from the side without being in the line of fire. so its an allmost equal trade off. the b29 will be suicidal to attack from the rear,top, or bottom. but vunerable in a HO or to the sides.
-fuel. this may be the only reason the b29 gets perked is because of its MASSIVE fuel option. but does the WHOLE bomber deserve to get perked just because of its fuel? no. maybe perk the option to change fuel above 50%, but dont punish the whole bomber for it.
-design. the B29 is a BIG target, it shouldnt be hard to hit with flak/field guns. and wirble pilots will have a field day when they see a b29 coming in to low-alt bomb. the bombers big enough to fill up there gunsights. so it doesnt deserve to be perked by its structure.
-performance. the b29 is a very good bomber, and is will have the highest ceiling count of a bomber in the game. but does it really deserve to be perked for that? since its climb rate is SO slow. it would take possably an hr to get it to its max ceiling alt. and if someones really gonna waste that much time to climb that high to avoid fighters then you know he isent a very good bomber pilot. (but i fear if the bomber is perked, you'll see alot of ppl doing this thing. because they will be too scared to lose there bomber points).
just my $0.02, theres nothing i see that makes it need to be perked. and certanly not the 400-500 perks people are asking for it.
-
i cant really see a reason to perk the b29 tho.
-its climb rate is very slow (i believe people were saying it takes 60 mins to reach 20k?) even with 50% fuel it will be a slow climber, much slower than say b17's and b24s. i think this will nock it out of the running for quick responce bombings on close bases. you'd have to launch these from a much farther allied base to rise to an appropriate hieght, pretty much you could have a b17 to atleast 10k and doing its bomb run before you can even get the 29 level at 10k.
i see the b29 become 4 things.
1. a major city attacking aircraft.
2. an HQ bombing aircraft
3. a low alt-carpet bombing gv planes.
4.used by score hores who like to up in bombers and just randomly bomb towns to score bomber points.
-armament. this may be a reason why it deserves to be perked, but why? it only has 1 20mm i believe in the tail (same as the betty) and it has no nose or waist guns. so if you can line your plane up right, the b29 will be easy to HO or strafe from the side without being in the line of fire. so its an allmost equal trade off. the b29 will be suicidal to attack from the rear,top, or bottom. but vunerable in a HO or to the sides.
-fuel. this may be the only reason the b29 gets perked is because of its MASSIVE fuel option. but does the WHOLE bomber deserve to get perked just because of its fuel? no. maybe perk the option to change fuel above 50%, but dont punish the whole bomber for it.
-design. the B29 is a BIG target, it shouldnt be hard to hit with flak/field guns. and wirble pilots will have a field day when they see a b29 coming in to low-alt bomb. the bombers big enough to fill up there gunsights. so it doesnt deserve to be perked by its structure.
-performance. the b29 is a very good bomber, and is will have the highest ceiling count of a bomber in the game. but does it really deserve to be perked for that? since its climb rate is SO slow. it would take possably an hr to get it to its max ceiling alt. and if someones really gonna waste that much time to climb that high to avoid fighters then you know he isent a very good bomber pilot. (but i fear if the bomber is perked, you'll see alot of ppl doing this thing. because they will be too scared to lose there bomber points).
just my $0.02, theres nothing i see that makes it need to be perked. and certanly not the 400-500 perks people are asking for it.
NOW YOU GOT IT!!!!! :x :x :x :x :rock :eek: :cool: :old: :O :lol :banana:
-
A quick search suggests the B-29 carries 9438 gallons of fuel. One gallon of gasoline weighs about 6lbs. That would make a B-29 with 50% fuel 28,314lbs lighter than a B-29 with 100% fuel.
That will have a very noticeable effect on climb rate.
-
That will have a [very noticeable] effect on climb rate.
"Enormous" may be a useful substitute...
-
-armament. this may be a reason why it deserves to be perked, but why? it only has 1 20mm i believe in the tail (same as the betty) and it has no nose or waist guns. so if you can line your plane up right, the b29 will be easy to HO or strafe from the side without being in the line of fire. so its an allmost equal trade off. the b29 will be suicidal to attack from the rear,top, or bottom. but vunerable in a HO or to the sides.
It did have an upper front turret with 4 .50"s and a lower front turret with 2 .50"s. Waist guns on the B-17 and B-24 were basically useless. As to strafing the B-29 from the side, there is 4 turrets that can engage you. That is 10 .50"s.
-
It did have an upper front turret with 4 .50"s and a lower front turret with 2 .50"s. Waist guns on the B-17 and B-24 were basically useless. As to strafing the B-29 from the side, there is 4 turrets that can engage you. That is 10 .50"s.
are you sure they are elevated enough to be able to get that angle of a shot? they dont look like they are. the front maybe. but the sides it doesnt. i could be wrong tho.
in-game the waist guns arent totally useless, there good for using when the enemy wants to make a sideways tail sweep on you. (sorry if i didnt use the proper attacking name lol)
-
I belive the reason its taken so long to get the 29 is the "When and can we have the nuke? :pray".
Quite frankly it would be annoying being asked every 5 mins "Can we have the nuke"--------5 mins-------"Can we have the nuke"------------5 mins---------"Can we have the nuke"----------5 mins--------------"Can we have the nuke"--Htc's reply "NO will you stfu about that stupid nuke!"----person asking for nukes reply " :cry :cry"
can we have the ATOMIC bomb?
(see wut i did thar? :bolt: :D)
-
can we have the ATOMIC bomb?
(see wut i did thar? :bolt: :D)
Kill it, kill it with a stick!
-
Tyrannis,
We've debunked all of your arguments.
The B-29 will climb markedly better than you state, being 28,314lbs lighter at 50% fuel than at 100%. You could even take 25% at times and be ok.
The B-29 has as good or better forward firepower than the B-17G does, depending on the angle the fighter attacks from. It has a much superior M2 20mm cannon (Hispano Mk II) in the tail, along with two .50s as compared to the G4M1's Type 99 Model 1 cannon, though I believe the G4M1 has significantly more cannon ammo.
A formation of B-29s will carry 60,000lbs of ordnance at max, noticeably more than the much slower, much more vulnerable Lancaster's 42,000lbs in a formation.
The B-29 will have a top speed of 355-360mph, faster than any bomber in the game other than the unarmed Mosquito Mk XVI and quirky Ar234, both perked.
It is likely, though not known yet, that the B-29 will be the most durable aircraft in AH, ever. Even monsters like the H8K2, if ever added, would not be as durable.
If it were not perked, as you argue, you would rarely see any bomber other than B-29s unless ENY limits blocked them. There would be no reason to ever fly a B-17G, B-24J or Lancaster, period. Will the B-29 be vulnerable? Yes, more so than the Ar234 or Mosquito Mk XVI, both perked, but less so than any other bomber. The trick HTC has it to find an appropriate perk value to balance its massive war load, performance and vulnerability.
-
Tyrannis,
We've debunked all of your arguments.
The B-29 will climb markedly better than you state, being 28,314lbs lighter at 50% fuel than at 100%. You could even take 25% at times and be ok.
The B-29 has as good or better forward firepower than the B-17G does, depending on the angle the fighter attacks from. It has a much superior M2 20mm cannon (Hispano Mk II) in the tail, along with two .50s as compared to the G4M1's Type 99 Model 1 cannon, though I believe the G4M1 has significantly more cannon ammo.
A formation of B-29s will carry 60,000lbs of ordnance at max, noticeably more than the much slower, much more vulnerable Lancaster's 42,000lbs in a formation.
The B-29 will have a top speed of 355-360mph, faster than any bomber in the game other than the unarmed Mosquito Mk XVI and quirky Ar234, both perked.
It is likely, though not known yet, that the B-29 will be the most durable aircraft in AH, ever. Even monsters like the H8K2, if ever added, would not be as durable.
If it were not perked, as you argue, you would rarely see any bomber other than B-29s unless ENY limits blocked them. There would be no reason to ever fly a B-17G, B-24J or Lancaster, period. Will the B-29 be vulnerable? Yes, more so than the Ar234 or Mosquito Mk XVI, both perked, but less so than any other bomber. The trick HTC has it to find an appropriate perk value to balance its massive war load, performance and vulnerability.
wasent so much an argument as simply my opinion. but ok.
-
FWIW the lower turrets on the B-29 could fire 5 degrees above horizontal, the upper front turret 2.5 degrees below and the upper rear horizontal and above only. The rear turret could train 30 degrees up, down left or right. You definitely don't want to attack a B-29 in the horizontal plane. Best bet would be a frontal attack from 3 degrees or more below the nose.
-
personally i dont feel the b29 deserves to be perked at all, sure it has a huge bombload, but its SLOW climbrate would most likely keep the b17/b24's in use.
B-29 has a faster loaded climb rate than a loaded B-17/B-24 and carries far more bombs.
i mainly see the b29 becoming a city/HQ attacking bomber only. it wouldnt be good for base capturing really, a group of b17's could have a town droped before a b29 even got high enough for a proper bombrun. may be good for low-alt carpet bombing, but as stated it will be a HUGE target for ack/flak to hit.
I'm not even going to bother with this one other than you're incorrect. Those with the perks will probably fly the B-29 as their primary bomber. It's got the range, firepower, bomb load and speed to make it far more survivable in the MA than any other bomber.
[quote
if you plan on attacking b29's with nikkis for historical fun, then allow me to suggest to you the japanese way of attacking b29s :salute
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/japanese-fighter-tactics-b29-superfortress.jpg)
[/quote]
That was pretty much the same tactic used by the Luftwaffe in engaging bombers, head on attacks. However, since you don't know, the Japanese had a very difficult time intercepting B-29s, especially when they came in at high altitudes. The Japanese just didn't have a sufficient enough of a high altitude interceptor to do the job. It was only when the B-29s were ordered to fly lower at medium to low altitudes did the Japanese have an easier time intercepting the bombers but then, it was only a minor improvement as the B-29A and the newer and lighter B-29B were fast enough to make intercepting them even at these altitudes difficult. It's one of the main reasons why B-29 losses due to fighters were significantly lower than losses from AAA and mechanical failures.
also, i demand dive flaps on my b29,. because i WILL be divebombing tiger tanks with it, just to cause the trillions of whine threads on the boards about it :devil
Not surprised you would resort to gamey tactics, it's common amongst those with little skill.
ack-ack
-
Historically this plane ran the risk of melting its engines if it climbed on full throttle. Nearly risking a fire, one test had it barely getting to 20k in 30 minutes. This was a speed test. After that they reduced to normal climb power, and it took an additional half hour to get to 30k. I wish I had the link to that test. It was posted a long while back on these forums.
Naturally this won't be modeled in Aces High, where our B-17G runs full WEP all the time.
Frankly, IMO no 4-engine bomber in this game ought to be allowed to take off without 100% onboard. It just unbalances the bombers in this game too much, letting them climb higher and faster than they ever could historically, and once up there floating like butterflies on the wind effortlessly, while flying faster in level flight than they ought to (yes, 100% in a B-17G slows down your level speed at 30K because your angle of attack must increase to balance out the weight, causing more drag)
It's not comparable to fighters. It's specific to bombers in this game.
-
Frankly, IMO no 4-engine bomber in this game ought to be allowed to take off without 100% onboard.
I agree and I also believe this should also carry over to fighters as well that have the ability to lug orndance.
ack-ack
-
B-29 has a faster loaded climb rate than a loaded B-17/B-24 and carries far more bombs.
I'm not even going to bother with this one other than you're incorrect. Those with the perks will probably fly the B-29 as their primary bomber. It's got the range, firepower, bomb load and speed to make it far more survivable in the MA than any other bomber.
That was pretty much the same tactic used by the Luftwaffe in engaging bombers, head on attacks. However, since you don't know, the Japanese had a very difficult time intercepting B-29s, especially when they came in at high altitudes. The Japanese just didn't have a sufficient enough of a high altitude interceptor to do the job. It was only when the B-29s were ordered to fly lower at medium to low altitudes did the Japanese have an easier time intercepting the bombers but then, it was only a minor improvement as the B-29A and the newer and lighter B-29B were fast enough to make intercepting them even at these altitudes difficult. It's one of the main reasons why B-29 losses due to fighters were significantly lower than losses from AAA and mechanical failures.
Not surprised you would resort to gamey tactics, it's common amongst those with little skill.
ack-ack
uh-oh, someones butthurt from what i said in the other thread and feels he needs to ankle hump me in every post i make now. :rofl
-
Historically this plane ran the risk of melting its engines if it climbed on full throttle.
Oversimplification Krusty. The biggest concern was during the run-up, taxi, and pre-takeoff in the warm conditions experienced on Saipan/Tinian airfields during big mission launches since the engines were operating without much relative wind for cooling. Once they were airborne, this problem went away. That's not to say that the engines could have been close to overheating before they got airborne, and it caused problems during the climb, but the cooling issues were related to low-speed, low-altitude conditions. Very symptomatic of a tightly-cowled engine. And, it wasn't enough to cripple the entire XX AF fleet on missions, but was arguably most associated with individual aircraft, and scare the entire B-29 communities' aircrews enough to create the nefarious reputation it had. With the B model, these issues began to diminish.
Naturally this won't be modeled in Aces High, where our B-17G runs full WEP all the time.
Should have said "runs military power all the time." We don't even have the WEP setting available on our B-17G
Frankly, IMO no 4-engine bomber in this game ought to be allowed to take off without 100% onboard. It just unbalances the bombers in this game too much, letting them climb higher and faster than they ever could historically
In game, those patient bomber pilots can get to whatever altitude they want before flying into bad-guy territory, regardless of power setting. Its a matter of how patient they are.
It's not comparable to fighters.
It most certainly is comparable to the advantages fighters enjoy in-game, but we know we disagree on this.
-
I agree and I also believe this should also carry over to fighters as well that have the ability to lug orndance.
ack-ack
Why? I would imagine that the Corsairs supporting on Okinawa, or the P-51's supporting on Iwo didn't carry full tanks when they took off... These guys were flying 15 minute sorties...
-
It is not comparable to fighters in the least.
While a somewhat superficially similar event happens with fighters, you're not reducing the flying weight by HALF the plane by taking less fuel. You don't gain 2x or 3x the climb rate as compared to historical performance numbers just by taking less fuel.
Fighters were compact, small, light (even the heavy ones are feathers compared to 4-engine bombers) and the end result of flying with 100% vs 50% only comes into play at stall speeds. You wouldn't affect a fighter's top level speed, for example, by more than 1-2 mph.
On the other hand, bombers gain tremendous a-historical performance gains by flying across the map and back on 25% at full throttle the entire way. They become super bombers, far outperforming the historic counterparts they are based on.
P.S. No I meant WEP. I believe the power setting currently used as "full throttle" was a 5-minute limited power setting. A squaddie of mine posted about it a while back posting actual power settings used.
-
Why? I would imagine that the Corsairs supporting on Okinawa, or the P-51's supporting on Iwo didn't carry full tanks when they took off... These guys were flying 15 minute sorties...
So, are you trying to say for example the P-38s that took part in the air support of Okinawa and other places like the Philippines took off with both 100% fuel, drop tanks, bombs and rockets? Hardly. Even the Iwo P-51s that flew missions to the Japanese main islands never took 100% fuel and 100% ordnance.
ack-ack
-
Erm.. Ack-Ack? I thought they HAD to take full fuel, and DTs, meaning they never carried bombs with rockets because they needed the gas too badly.
EDIT: I'm all for historical loadout limitations, I just dont' get what you're saying.
-
A quick search suggests the B-29 carries 9438 gallons of fuel. One gallon of gasoline weighs about 6lbs. That would make a B-29 with 50% fuel 28,314lbs lighter than a B-29 with 100% fuel.
That will have a very noticeable effect on climb rate.
Hey Karnak, are you sure of this number? With that many gallons, I get 56628 lbs of fuel. If we add the empty weight (~75,000lbs), plus 20,000 lbs of bombs, we get 151628 which would put it way over its listed max takeoff weight. Total fuel load with 20,000 lbs of bombs should be around 38,000 lbs max if the crew weight is considered (~2200 lbs @ 11 men/200lbs per) and not counting defensive armament (if that was not computed as part of empty weight). Of course, that means a 19,000 lb reduction which is still significant, but I think we're in the realm of considering how much fuel would be considered a "combat" load versus a ferry load.
[Edit] That's the correct number...Obviously there were situations when they didn't carry "full" fuel.
[Edit #2] Same articles says 5,000 lb bomb load for 1600 nm radius mission.
-
So, are you trying to say for example the P-38s that took part in the air support of Okinawa and other places like the Philippines took off with both 100% fuel, drop tanks, bombs and rockets? Hardly. Even the Iwo P-51s that flew missions to the Japanese main islands never took 100% fuel and 100% ordnance.
ack-ack
I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood your post I quoted. It sounded like you wanted all fighters that could carry ordnance to carry 100% fuel in-game. My point was that historically, there's a chance that on those short-hop air support sorties they carried less that 100% internal fuel, so why should we force 100% in-game?
Iwo P-51's going to mainland Japan would be all fuel. I do know that P-47Ns conducting interdiction missions to mainland Japan from Ie Shima would sometimes load (1) 500lb on the centerline, (10) rockets, and two 150 gallon drops on the wings, but that's the N Jug. I don't know that the Pony could make it there and back with ordnance of any kind.
-
It is not comparable to fighters in the least.
While a somewhat superficially similar event happens with fighters, you're not reducing the flying weight by HALF the plane by taking less fuel. You don't gain 2x or 3x the climb rate as compared to historical performance numbers just by taking less fuel.
If the B-29 has a max takeoff of 125,000 lbs, dropping 20,000 lbs of fuel (less than 1/3rd of its empty weight) doesn't give the plane the same weight reduction you generalized above.
Fighters were compact, small, light (even the heavy ones are feathers compared to 4-engine bombers) and the end result of flying with 100% vs 50% only comes into play at stall speeds. You wouldn't affect a fighter's top level speed, for example, by more than 1-2 mph.
Test a clean P-47N with full internal fuel at 34,000 feet, then compare it again with 25% fuel and you'll get more than a 1-2 mph difference in top speed. We went through this before about the effects of induced drag at altitude and how it applied to bombers in a previous discussion maybe two years ago.
P.S. No I meant WEP. I believe the power setting currently used as "full throttle" was a 5-minute limited power setting. A squaddie of mine posted about it a while back posting actual power settings used.
We don't have the 5-minute War Emergency setting available in-game. We have the 5-minute Military Power setting available all the time. Its been a while since I've flown a B-17 in game, but I believe we are limited to 46"/2500 RPM. If my research is correct, there was a WEP setting of 55"/2750 RPM. Someone should page Baumer I guess, since he has stick time...
-
I don't know that the Pony could make it there and back with ordnance of any kind.
I've seen gun camera of Mustangs using rockets over Japan. Here's a pic of a Mustang with rockets and drop tanks on Iwo:
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_jcNQzBZlLiE/SYpp929lhpI/AAAAAAAAJyQ/vbFpeTVVZD4/s800/78th_fs_101_a42217.jpg)
-
If my research is correct, there was a WEP setting of 55"/2750 RPM.
I don't believe there was a WEP power setting on the B-17. When I flew the 909 for the Collings Foundation we never used more than 44 inches (and that only rarely). We were limited by no longer having 100/130 octane fuel -- but even so I just don't remember ever seeing a power setting over 44 inches.
Of course if I thought I was going to die I'd push the throttles up until I wasn't scared anymore. <G>
-
If it's a 5-minute limited power setting, that's basically a WEP (i.e. emergency power).
-
Test a clean P-47N with full internal fuel at 34,000 feet, then compare it again with 25% fuel
You take the worst example of the highest alt and the heaviest fighter with the most internal gas.
Try a P-51D at 25k. Try a 109 at 20k. I don't deny there will be climb increase with less weight, however the weight you're reducing is a fraction of the gains that heavy bombers get.
It would be like flying a spit at 25% fuel and WEP the entire sortie without ever fearing running out of gas for hours. That's how our current bombers compare to historic ones.
I've put forth a more radical idea in the past: Give bombers their own fuel burn. Then crank it up to 8x burn rate. They will need to take full fuel to get anywhere, and cruise to and from target just like real bombers, even though their targets are only 100 miles away (they even took 100% internal for short hops across the channel to bomb targets in France and back)
-
I've seen gun camera of Mustangs using rockets over Japan. Here's a pic of a Mustang with rockets and drop tanks on Iwo:
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_jcNQzBZlLiE/SYpp929lhpI/AAAAAAAAJyQ/vbFpeTVVZD4/s800/78th_fs_101_a42217.jpg)
I wasn't sure if the extra drag would limit them, but obviously not. Thanks for the pic Colombo.
-
If it's a 5-minute limited power setting, that's basically a WEP (i.e. emergency power).
Almost every U.S. fighter in the game shares the same 5 minute limit to its military power setting, then adds an additional 5 minute limit to a WEP setting that is higher than military power. Just saying...
-
You take the worst example of the highest alt and the heaviest fighter with the most internal gas.
I did that on purpose because you have a tendency to over-generalize when you post. Your statement was that "You wouldn't affect a fighter's top level speed, for example, by more than 1-2 mph." Better to use specific examples with tested speed deltas to make your argument. Given your statement, my P-47N example was spot on. That being said, you can't say "you're not reducing the flying weight by HALF the plane by taking less fuel." because we don't have an aircraft in game that can carry its empty weight in fuel do we? And, further, the P-47N can almost double its military power rate of climb by reducing its fuel load. I know what you're getting at, just trying to force you to tailor it down to specifics. Like I said in my first response to Karnak, the B-29 will see an enormous performance improvement by taking 50% fuel, just try and temper your argument a bit so people like me can't come in a cherry-pick it.
It would be like flying a spit at 25% fuel and WEP the entire sortie without ever fearing running out of gas for hours. That's how our current bombers compare to historic ones.
Again, I would suggest you change this to "flying a spit at 25% fuel and Military Power the entire sortie...
I've put forth a more radical idea in the past: Give bombers their own fuel burn. Then crank it up to 8x burn rate. They will need to take full fuel to get anywhere, and cruise to and from target just like real bombers, even though their targets are only 100 miles away (they even took 100% internal for short hops across the channel to bomb targets in France and back)
First, source for the part I italicized--and I'm asking a question, not calling you out. We know that bomb loads could vary based on range to target in some instances. According to Joe Baugher, the B-29s operating out of China early on couldn't carry the same bomb loads as those based in the Marianas due to needing bomb-bay mounted fuel tanks.
This could be added as an additional arena setting, splitting the bombers into one fuel burn and the attack/fighters into another. The only problem is that since they're burning fuel 4 times faster than everyone else, by the time they're over the target (when it matters for interception purposes), and more specifically as they run away home, their weight would be reduced down, due to fuel burn, to levels probably approaching the 25-50% you're objecting to.
Perhaps we should ask HTC why bombers have the option of taking 25, 50, and 75% fuel and then see what the answer is...
-
Stoney,
No, I am not sure. It was just the result of a quick and dirty internet search while at work. It was a lot more than my guestimate had been, that is why I rewrote that post.
As I recall, RAF fighters at AH MIL setting are on either their 30 minute or unlimited setting per their pilot's handbooks. I can check on the Mosquito VI later.
-
Erm.. Ack-Ack? I thought they HAD to take full fuel, and DTs, meaning they never carried bombs with rockets because they needed the gas too badly.
EDIT: I'm all for historical loadout limitations, I just dont' get what you're saying.
Historical loadout limitations. Sorry for the confusion.
ack-ack
-
If it's a 5-minute limited power setting, that's basically a WEP (i.e. emergency power).
Every US-built fighter that I have checked that doesn't have WEP in AH has a time limit on their take-off power setting (maximum power setting). Aces High's "WEP" is obviously somewhat generic but, IMO, Pyro has used a consistent logic on most planes that if manufacturer/country of a certain plane calls the max. output take off setting it doesn't have a time limit in AH even if it had one in real life. For take-off setting, the time limit was largely 5min of US combat aircraft.
So if what you're saying would be true in the context of AH, basically every plane in the game would have some kind of time limit ie. "AH-WEP" on their maximum power setting.
-
Umm...so when are we getting the B-29?
:headscratch:
-
They said they would add it to the queue. I'm sure there were a few things they were working on already, so look for it around mid-summer.
-
They said they would add it to the queue. I'm sure there were a few things they were working on already, so look for it around mid-summer.
The front of the queue. :D
2 weeks.
wrongway
-
The front of the queue. :D
2 weeks.
wrongway
i sure hope your right
-
The front of the queue. :D
2 weeks.
wrongway
LOL!!! wrongway, these kids will believe that, don't do that to them !
-
The front of the queue. :D
2 weeks.
wrongway
The front of the queue, except for things that were already in production. They've shown one screen of an untextured, unfinished model of the B-29 in development.
-
The front of the queue, except for things that were already in production. They've shown one screen of an untextured, unfinished model of the B-29 in development.
Where?
-
In two weeks.