Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: dirtdart on January 28, 2011, 02:25:20 PM
-
So, most of the posts I have read seems to say our current runways will not be long enough for the B-29.
1. Is this true?
2. Will they have to create new "B-29" fields?
3. Limit the B-29 to the deep high alt fields?
-
If the chart Ack Ack posted a while ago is the correct version, it seems like the runway was just barely long enough to take-off with full fuel; but few will try to take off with 100% anyway.
Unless someone from HTC gets on here now, all talk of B-29 is just speculation from players. We can only wait until HTC makes the release, then have the answers to all the questions.
-
Yeah, very true. But we, the unwashed masses, are impatient.
QFT amigo :cheers:
Sure would be nice to hear from them wouldn't it?
-
Yeah, very true. But we, the unwashed masses, are impatient.
QFT amigo :cheers:
Sure would be nice to hear from them wouldn't it?
Yes and no, previews and expected release dates always cause such a commotion here on the BBS, sometimes silence is better. :)
-
If the runway are not long enough you can always throw it off the cliff :aok :D
-
+1 :devil
-
If the runway are not long enough you can always throw it off the cliff :aok :D
was going to do that anyways, need to make room for my Short Stirling :noid
-
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]
A fact I found, followed by a post by greebo.
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 highly doubt that the HTC crew will limit the amount of fuel the B-29 will be able to up with. So we will be seeing an upgrade to a few, if not most, fields. Depends on whether or not they will limit it's use from specific fields or not. I'm still wondering if we will get the 20mm gun in the tail... :headscratch:
-
I would love to see bomber-specific airfields. It's something I have wanted for a long time. To expand on that...the role of high altitude precision bombing would need to be changed in order for that to ever happen though. As of now, there is no clearly defined role. Heavies aren't really "needed"
-
A more specific question would be, given the climb rate of a fully loaded B29, it was extremely shallow. Slow to build up speed and took a very long time to start to climb at a decent rate. We all know how many fields there are in the game where it's hard enough to get 25% lancs up without losing a drone or crashing into a hill. We're gonna have to pick runways with clear ground out to 10 miles to get a decent ascent in one of those suckers and that's gonna rule out a ton of landlocked fields.
-
Runways?! We don't need no stinkin' runways. Back in my day, we used to takeoff going uphill, barefoot, on a dirt road, in 110-degree heat, with a 50-knot headwind, and in 20-inches of snow!... before we landed using the same runway!@
-
+1 :salute
Runways?! We don't need no stinkin' runways. Back in my day, we used to takeoff going uphill, barefoot, on a dirt road, in 110-degree heat, with a 50-knot headwind, and in 20-inches of snow!... before we landed using the same runway!@
-
Runways?! We don't need no stinkin' runways. Back in my day, we used to takeoff going uphill, barefoot, on a dirt road, in 110-degree heat, with a 50-knot headwind, and in 20-inches of snow!... before we landed using the same runway!@
:rofl
-
Or pilots could just get their bellybutton in gear and force the thing off the runway. :D :D
-
A more specific question would be, given the climb rate of a fully loaded B29, it was extremely shallow. Slow to build up speed and took a very long time to start to climb at a decent rate. We all know how many fields there are in the game where it's hard enough to get 25% lancs up without losing a drone or crashing into a hill. We're gonna have to pick runways with clear ground out to 10 miles to get a decent ascent in one of those suckers and that's gonna rule out a ton of landlocked fields.
Or we could just turn and avoid the hills, get our bellybutton in gear and make it do what we want it to do.
Its alot like a 17.
Me and a friend were flying 17's the other day we came to a 30k hill at 25,549 feet, he said I wouldn't make it, I did he crashed. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
B29 >> Initial Climb: 900 fpm @ 150 mph Indicated (@99,480 lbs).
B17 >> Initial Climb: 900 fpm @ 135 mph Indicated (@57,000 lbs).
Lancaster >> Initial Climb: 1000 fpm @ 145 mph Indicated (@52,000 lbs)
What I was trying to point out, is that the B29 had a VERY shallow initial ascent angle. More shallow than either that B17 or the Lancaster. With that comes more difficulty in taking off, and hence we will have to find the proper runway more often. Turning a 100,000lb+ plane isn't going to be very 'easy' in a simulated environment and the loss of speed while turning is going to be almost twice (if not more) what the loss is in B17's. B29's could go up to 135,000lbs, B1-G7's around 65,500lbs turning that thing isn't going to be even slightly close. If you do try and turn in the climb you're going to lose your airspeed and tank it.
As others have pointed out, IF you were lucky to not lose an engine on ascent (most frequently to overheating) the plane grabbed well as it got higher and higher. If you did lose one you literally couldn't continue to climb and ended up in the water. This was a common and well documented issue with the B29's more so in their early day's.
-
Sounds like there gonna be easy to shoot down being big and heavy.lol just like the name of a P-47 jug. slow ,big,and heavy.easy to shoot...can you say that again.
-
was going to do that anyways, need to make room for my Short Stirling :noid
he111
-
Or we could just turn and avoid the hills, get our bellybutton in gear and make it do what we want it to do.
Its alot like a 17.
Me and a friend were flying 17's the other day we came to a 30k hill at 25,549 feet, he said I wouldn't make it, I did he crashed. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
i wounder who that was most not be me :rofl :lol
-
Sounds like there gonna be easy to shoot down being big and heavy.lol just like the name of a P-47 jug. slow ,big,and heavy.easy to shoot...can you say that again.
P-47 easy to shoot down? You've not run into many of us who fly the "Jug" on a consistent basis. The jug is not slow by any means. It is big and heavy, neither of which make it easy to shoot down and on the obverse, it gives me a helluva advantage when I'm sitting above your spitfire by 3-5K.
-
The B29 we are getting are going to have RATO. :aok
-
i dont think they ever did use rato and even so that may not help at all.