Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Muzzy on February 22, 2011, 01:55:36 PM
-
Initial impression: Well, I can see where George Lucas got the idea for the Millenium Falcon's cockpit now.
Firepower: Godlike. The amount of rounds you throw out from any gun position is devastating. Plus, you can carry enough ordinance to take a small or medium airfield down almost by yourself.
Climb rate: Glacial. It takes forever to gain altitude, so expect long trips.
Fuel: 300+ minutes at full, which you should never need. Half or less should be enough to get you anywhere.
Further updates to follow. :)
-
Fuel: 300+ minutes at full, which you should never need. Half or less should be enough to get you anywhere.
You had tested it at fuel burn rate 1.0 ;)
-
True. To revise:
Climb rate is actually pretty good at half fuel and a reasonable bomb load.
Speed is good for a bomber once you get altitude.
Durability: not as great as I'd hoped. It doesn't take much to rip off a wing.
-
Speed is good for a bomber once you get altitude.
hehe.. almost an understatement.
Speed @ full military power, 50% fuel, 12.000lbs, large gun package
20K: 337mph
25K: 351mph
30K: 361mph
35K: 357mph
:airplane:
-
1/4 bag she climbs better than the lanc with 20 500lbs, on @ 1150 Appr. 40 minutes of fuel will get to 30000 no problem
Will try 1/2 bag with 40 500lbs next.
roll rate is slightly faster than the sun crosses the sky
I used all of the runway and 2 notches flaps, make sure you have nothing in front of you at take off ,
gear up and slight back pressure till 150mph then 1 notch flaps, 165 no flaps, 180 start climbing
-
Overall performance is good, but the fragility is an issue.
-
Overall performance is good, but the fragility is an issue.
thats why you take it to 35-40k alt. at the alts not many would be very good. and you would mostly see a 262 or a 163(if you run strats raids) FW190s too and TA152s.
-
thats why you take it to 35-40k alt. at the alts not many would be very good. and you would mostly see a 262 or a 163(if you run strats raids) FW190s too and TA152s.
at 35-40k, you wont see a 262, and hardly a 190D (sorry, A8 is completely out there too).
-
at 35-40k, you wont see a 262, and hardly a 190D (sorry, A8 is completely out there too).
ok so what planes would be most likely to deal with the B-29 at 35-40k?
-
ok so what planes would be most likely to deal with the B-29 at 35-40k?
I think the Ta 152, late model P47's and the Me 163 are the only planes we have capable of reaching that height.
-
ok so what planes would be most likely to deal with the B-29 at 35-40k?
There are not many that have the necessary excess power / performance at 30K and above: F4U-4, Spit XiV, P-47M&N, Ta 152, 109K4 (to a lesser extend maybe Spit 9, 38L/M and P51D). At 35K+ things get really very difficult for all of those too (109K drops out first), at that altitudes it's mostly reduced to Ta152 and 47M/N and maybe still the Spit XIV. But with the technicalities of ultra-high combat flying, the 29 holds almost all the cards up there.
You need climbrate to get up there in the first place. You need speed to catch up with a 360mph plane without running out of fuel), and then you still need a lot of power/climbrate to get into favorable attack positions (crawling up low six vs 20mm rear gun no good idea). You need good maneuverability at ultra high altitude (that's just relatively spoken - players that usually just furball down low will find themselves alternating between stall and compression) and you need firepower to bring it down.
-
There are not many that have the necessary excess power / performance at 30K and above: F4U-4, Spit XiV, P-47M&N, Ta 152, 109K4 (to a lesser extend maybe Spit 9, 38L/M and P51D). At 35K+ things get really very difficult for all of those too (109K drops out first), at that altitudes it's mostly reduced to Ta152 and 47M/N and maybe still the Spit XIV. But with the technicalities of ultra-high combat flying, the 29 holds almost all the cards up there.
thats why its perfect for defence. if your worried about losing it. take it to 40k
-
If you get it to 40k (not very likely) post a short video showing your altimeter. :D
-
If you get it to 40k (not very likely) post a short video showing your altimeter. :D
ok but first i need to get the perks. i wanna show it in combat. maybe againts a TA152.
-
There are not many that have the necessary excess power / performance at 30K and above: F4U-4, Spit XiV, P-47M&N, Ta 152, 109K4 (to a lesser extend maybe Spit 9, 38L/M and P51D). At 35K+ things get really very difficult for all of those too (109K drops out first), at that altitudes it's mostly reduced to Ta152 and 47M/N and maybe still the Spit XIV. But with the technicalities of ultra-high combat flying, the 29 holds almost all the cards up there.
You need climbrate to get up there in the first place. You need speed to catch up with a 360mph plane without running out of fuel), and then you still need a lot of power/climbrate to get into favorable attack positions (crawling up low six vs 20mm rear gun no good idea). You need good maneuverability at ultra high altitude (that's just relatively spoken - players that usually just furball down low will find themselves alternating between stall and compression) and you need firepower to bring it down.
So. Basically the Japanese were fooling themselves when they thought they shot down high-flying B29s. Got it.
- oldman
-
So. Basically the Japanese were fooling themselves when they thought they shot down high-flying B29s. Got it.
- oldman
Huh? :headscratch:
-
Huh? :headscratch:
None of the planes you suggested could catch and kill B29s was Japanese.
- oldman
-
None of the planes you suggested could catch and kill B29s was Japanese.
- oldman
Yes. For a good reason. How is the performance of the N1k or Ki-84 at 35k in AH? What cruising speed does a B-29 have at that altitude - in AH? ;)
Because that's what the question was about
-
So. Basically the Japanese were fooling themselves when they thought they shot down high-flying B29s. Got it.
Comparing real life and AH isn't viable for several reasons.
First of all, "high-flying" and "35k" can be two different things.
Lusche's assessment is very accurate.
-
Yes. For a good reason. How is the performance of the N1k or Ki-84 at 35k in AH? What cruising speed does a B-29 have at that altitude - in AH? ;)
Because that's what the question was about
Hey, I'm not beating on you! I'm sure you're correct. My point is that Japanese fighters DID shoot down high-flying B29s (before 3/10/45). Evidently we can't duplicate that in AH.
- oldman
-
Well it's not that you *can't*, it's just very very difficult. Again, if you can catch one it doesn't take much to drop it. I cut one in half with two quick bursts from a spitsteen. Against a B-17 I'll empty my clip and be lucky to get maybe one or two.
The interesting thing is we can simulate (sort of) how the 29 would have fared against German fighters, which were far more capable bomber killers.
-
Hey, I'm not beating on you! I'm sure you're correct. My point is that Japanese fighters DID shoot down high-flying B29s (before 3/10/45). Evidently we can't duplicate that in AH.
- oldman
We can, if our B-29's would fly the same mission profile as the real one back then and the fighters are competently vectored in.
But as pinpoint bombing accuracy at 360 mph @ 35k is no problem in AH....
-
Oldman -
We also don't have any of the Japanese fighters that were used to attack the B-29s when they flew high. I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed by this update. Only new plane is the B-29, which will end up seeing next to no use. Not even useful for scenarios, since we don't have the Japanese planeset to go against it. I keep thinking every new update is going to be the "big one" with some Russian or Japanese planes to fill the chasms in the planeset.
I'm still going to sign up though, just like I always do :). Maybe some day the WW1 planeset could get some attention too, that'd be cool.
-
How many have you shot down Snailman?
-
How many have you shot down Snailman?
0 :(
-
0 :(
It's okay snailman, I only got one and it was with an A2A rocket.
I'm up in a 152 hunting them as we speak
-
I have yet to take the B29 up for a run in the MA, I'm not even sure if I will. I cant think of how I wold use all the ordnance, range, etc. I knew it would going to climb like g'ma on a ladder when loaded to the max w ords (and regardless of the %50 or %100 fuel). I will eat my words though, I was betting that the B29 would not be here before summer, I was very wrong. Job well done to the crew at HTC. :salute
I wish HTC would add a small perk price to the Lanc, B24, B17, and B26.
-
Durability: not as great as I'd hoped. It doesn't take much to rip off a wing.
Is this aero or gun damage?
Snailman - Sorry I never got that topic up. I kept having one thing after another to do and it's just my luck that this time the new plane was released sooner than usual.
... Or maybe it's not too late:
There are not many that have the necessary excess power / performance at 30K and above: F4U-4, Spit XiV, P-47M&N, Ta 152, 109K4 (to a lesser extend maybe Spit 9, 38L/M and P51D). At 35K+ things get really very difficult for all of those too (109K drops out first), at that altitudes it's mostly reduced to Ta152 and 47M/N and maybe still the Spit XIV. But with the technicalities of ultra-high combat flying, the 29 holds almost all the cards up there.
You need climbrate to get up there in the first place. You need speed to catch up with a 360mph plane without running out of fuel), and then you still need a lot of power/climbrate to get into favorable attack positions (crawling up low six vs 20mm rear gun no good idea). You need good maneuverability at ultra high altitude (that's just relatively spoken - players that usually just furball down low will find themselves alternating between stall and compression) and you need firepower to bring it down.
Reading this I still immediately think that a plane like the 410 (ie the punchier ones - ideally BK5 or 2xMK103 or at least 6xMG151 (and A2A rockets; did the 410 carry any?)) that can make the most of each single pass is a good solution to the problem the B-29 presents to destroyers: it's so fast and well defended, especially if we compound these with thin air.
How about the chog's high alt performance? The reach and volume of its guns might make it competitive if it's not too wheezy up there (edit - by AH perfcharts it looks like it's got enough performance left around 30k). I'll try and put the topic up by this weekend.
Oldman -
We also don't have any of the Japanese fighters that were used to attack the B-29s when they flew high. I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed by this update. Only new plane is the B-29, which will end up seeing next to no use. Not even useful for scenarios, since we don't have the Japanese planeset to go against it. I keep thinking every new update is going to be the "big one" with some Russian or Japanese planes to fill the chasms in the planeset.
I'm still going to sign up though, just like I always do :). Maybe some day the WW1 planeset could get some attention too, that'd be cool.
Hey Steve,
Not implying anything but just commenting: the B-29 was always gonna be a dev resource hog, from what HTC said.
-
We can, if our B-29's would fly the same mission profile as the real one back then and the fighters are competently vectored in.
But as pinpoint bombing accuracy at 360 mph @ 35k is no problem in AH....
In RL history, Curtis Lemay ordered the B-29s to low altitude raids due to poor high altitude accuracy.
In AH, due to perk prices, lack of Tokyo size targets, and B-29 fragility, low alt Superfortresses will not be a common sight.
-
In RL history, Curtis Lemay ordered the B-29s to low altitude incendiary bombing raids due to poor high altitude high-explosive bomb accuracy, and because Japanese cites of the 1940's were highly flammable.
EDIT: context added
-
Regarding fragility:
In combat, my first Superbuff got tore up by a P 38 with only a couple of bursts, shearing off a wing on the 2nd pass. Also, as I mentioned in other threads, I cut a 29 in half (broke the fuselage in two just behind the wings) with a few hispano rounds.
In regular flight: One of my squaddies crashed because he didn't get a stall warning, another lost control surfaces in a very shallow dive.
-
I can vouch for that also. I lost ailerons in a VERY shallow dive. IAS was less than 325 MPH. TAS was lees than 350.
Methinks there are bugs to be ironed out with this bird. No way should you be losing control surfaces in such a manner.
Something else which happened to me. I jumped to another plane to get a better targeting solution on a bandit. When I went back to the #1 plane, I could not see any of my instruments. I was no longer in the pilots seat. Any of them.
-
Diving too fast or too steep will rip both elevators off way before a main wing. Yes I did that. :old:
-
b29 damage offline test:
Titanic Tuesday wasnt treating me well so i played around with the b29 offline. my first flight the ack at a vbase handily destroyed my b29 halfway through my first pass, no 37mm impacts were observed (was planing on making passes and getting shot till the b29 gave up, just to get an idea of the punishment it could take). i was a bit surprised at how easily 3 different fires were started.. and decided to up a c2 with b29 target drones. a VERY short burst from d600 from the 12.7 mg's in the nose 1) ate thru the flap and 2) started an engine fire. subsequent short (like 1 second or less) bursts in each engine and the forward/right/bottom section of the fuselage gave me a b29 with every tank on fire and just one flap missing besides. it is actually easier/more probable for a hit in the engine to start a fire than to damage the engine.
made subsequent high side runs on a fresh bomber with the same result, again just with the mg's in the nose of my c2
set other offline drones to an a6m, p47d11, g4m, n1k, b24, b17 and did the same things to them with just the mg's as i did to the b29
in short the b29 is a much larger and just as flammable target IMO as the jap planes with their lack of self-sealing tanks/armor etc, most comparable to the b24 in terms of durability but with seemingly larger ares to hit to inflict 'threshold' damage
these things are easy meat if a hit can be scored
im sure there are other guys who have played with our new toy offline and i would assume my experience would be easily repeated
edit: sorry for hijacking thread here, noticed lots of other "b29 such and such" threads and didnt want to add another one. my bad guys
</hijack>
:salute
-
another interesting point that probably isn't modeled in the 29...when you punch holes in a thermos...it makes for explosive problems...pressurization problems would require them to drop below 10k and make for a very long flight home...
-
To be honest, B-29 was known to catch fire. I'll have to wait till I get home to find the exact passage, but something around the engine was made out of magnesium to save weight. Unfortunately for the aircrews, magnesium is extremely flammable.
-
another interesting point that probably isn't modeled in the 29...when you punch holes in a thermos...it makes for explosive problems...pressurization problems would require them to drop below 10k and make for a very long flight home...
If memory serves, it was SOP to depressurize the plane before entering the target area.
- oldman
-
To be honest, B-29 was known to catch fire. I'll have to wait till I get home to find the exact passage, but something around the engine was made out of magnesium to save weight. Unfortunately for the aircrews, magnesium is extremely flammable.
I think I remember reading this same comment and someone with technical experience, or who read cumulative practical reports, replying that shouldn't be reason enough. Were any of the other bombers in AH designed this way?
-
In RL history, Curtis Lemay ordered the B-29s to low altitude raids due to poor high altitude accuracy.
In AH, due to perk prices, lack of Tokyo size targets, and B-29 fragility, low alt Superfortresses will not be a common sight.
No... he ordered them "lower." Low alt means below 15k. LeMay ordered the bombers "down" to 23k.
-
To be honest, B-29 was known to catch fire. I'll have to wait till I get home to find the exact passage, but something around the engine was made out of magnesium to save weight. Unfortunately for the aircrews, magnesium is extremely flammable.
The most relentless problem was the 2,200 hp Wright Cyclone R-3350 twin row radial engine. It had a persistent inclination to overheat, swallow valves and even catch fire in flight. In an effort to produce more horsepower from a lighter engine, the crankcase was made of magnesium, a very light, very strong metal. The problem was magnesium is also a flammable metal. When that was combined with the additional problem of a fuel induction system, which tended to catch fire and burn long enough to catch the magnesium afire, it became a very serious situation.
Non bullet related burning. They overheated VERY easily especially in early service times.
-
I think I remember reading this same comment and someone with technical experience, or who read cumulative practical reports, replying that shouldn't be reason enough. Were any of the other bombers in AH designed this way?
yeah the AH b29 burning seems to be from large weak fuel tanks. flying offline and 8/10 times the damage received from ack is either a fuel fire or a pw. have yet to have any engine or gear get hit, and a disproportionately small number of control surface hits :huh
-
1/4 bag she climbs better than the lanc with 20 500lbs, on @ 1150 Appr. 40 minutes of fuel will get to 30000 no problem
Will try 1/2 bag with 40 500lbs next.
roll rate is slightly faster than the sun crosses the sky
I used all of the runway and 2 notches flaps, make sure you have nothing in front of you at take off ,
gear up and slight back pressure till 150mph then 1 notch flaps, 165 no flaps, 180 start climbing
I found very good results leaving the flaps up until right before you wanted to rotate, then throwing down 1 notch. It's kind of a bush pilot take-off style, but it allows it to gain speed with minimal drag. I found that with two notches, the B-29 wanted to pick up it's nose a bit early which caused a good deal amount of drag.
That got me off the ground the fastest with 100% fuel and full bomb load.
-
After flying the B29 in the Special Events arena I learned that it's best use will be in high altitude strikes at 25+K. At that altitude there are few planes that can effectively boom and zoom it and its guns become more effective for protection. I encountered 2 fighters during my run (Ta152 and Bf109k4). They made 2-3 high speed passes before falling behind, then both tried for a tail shot and were summarily dispatched.
If you'd like to cruise around at high alt and carpet bomb several targets, than the 29 is your ride. At least one of my squaddies likes flying missions like that, and more power to him.
-
Regarding fragility:
Also, as I mentioned in other threads, I cut a 29 in half (broke the fuselage in two just behind the wings) with a few hispano rounds.
Was it me? First day it was out, about 16k alt over A24. I saw a spit and LA7 behind me. :D
-
I am getting some reports from our bomber wing that at high alt cruise with wep on engine fires are occuring.
-
I can vouch for that also. I lost ailerons in a VERY shallow dive. IAS was less than 325 MPH. TAS was lees than 350.
Methinks there are bugs to be ironed out with this bird. No way should you be losing control surfaces in such a manner.
Something else which happened to me. I jumped to another plane to get a better targeting solution on a bandit. When I went back to the #1 plane, I could not see any of my instruments. I was no longer in the pilots seat. Any of them.
I had this happen offline.
-
Re B-29 low level alts: The incindiery bomb raids were conducted at night from alts of @5000-9000 feet. Japanese flak and night fighters were nowhere near as effective as the Luftwaffes and so the losses were judged to be within reasonable %. The first such raid mass raid were done in March 1945. The benefits were; fewer fighters intercepting and much greater damage to the targets compared to high alt day raids with conventional HE loads.
Re IJ fighters: We have 4 IJ fighters in AH that saw action vs B-29s; Ki-84, N1K2, Ki-61 and A6M5 all served in home defence units in 1945.
The two best performing Japanese fighters in WW2 were the Ki-84 and N1K2-J. The only fighter that comes anywhere close to those two that we dont have in AH is the J2M Raiden and looking at the #s I don't see it as very different in capabilities. The Ki-45...it did have a 37mm cannon in the nose but it was a good 30-40 mph slower than any of the previous mentioned. So if you can get close enough with a Ki-45 and land some cannon rounds you might do some damage but with a max speed of @340 mph at alt its painfully slow vs a B-29 Superfortress. Its slower than an A6M5.
None of the Japanese fighters were really suited to making high alt intercepts against fast, large, high flying strategic bombers. Not compared to what the Luftwaffe had in 1944-45. That being said, they did the best they could with what they had. Had they had access to 100 octane fuel, and had a large reserve of trained pilots, and had enough logistics and supplies to keep them operational they would have done much better vs the B-29 raids.
In closing if anybody is waiting for a Japanese fighter in AH that is going to zoom up to engage a B-29 and is just "way better" than a Ki-84 or an N1K2...there is no such fighter forthcoming. The J2M is "about as good" as those two with a slightly better climb rate but its slower than a Ki-84. Its armament is the same as an N1K2 (4 x 20mm). Not saying we should not get the Raiden, I think we should as AH is about having the WW2 planes they flew and I would welcome it to the lineup. Same with the Ki-45, add it just dont be surprised a its very average speed and climb.
-
Was it me? First day it was out, about 16k alt over A24. I saw a spit and LA7 behind me. :D
It may well have been you. I might have the film so I'll check. Were you firing out of the tail gun?
-
nice post squire.
i still think these things are just 'flammable bettys', i hit one online last night with maybe 3 20mm rounds and it burned. was my first combat flight in that plane so i know i didnt hit it well.
a capably flown german plane in game is capable of intercepting the b29
-
It may well have been you. I might have the film so I'll check. Were you firing out of the tail gun?
yep, didnt hit anything with it. :)
-
Re B-29 low level alts: The incindiery bomb raids were conducted at night from alts of @5000-9000 feet. Japanese flak and night fighters were nowhere near as effective as the Luftwaffes and so the losses were judged to be within reasonable %. The first such raid mass raid were done in March 1945. The benefits were; fewer fighters intercepting and much greater damage to the targets compared to high alt day raids with conventional HE loads.
Re IJ fighters: We have 4 IJ fighters in AH that saw action vs B-29s; Ki-84, N1K2, Ki-61 and A6M5 all served in home defence units in 1945.
The two best performing Japanese fighters in WW2 were the Ki-84 and N1K2-J. The only fighter that comes anywhere close to those two that we dont have in AH is the J2M Raiden and looking at the #s I don't see it as very different in capabilities. The Ki-45...it did have a 37mm cannon in the nose but it was a good 30-40 mph slower than any of the previous mentioned. So if you can get close enough with a Ki-45 and land some cannon rounds you might do some damage but with a max speed of @340 mph at alt its painfully slow vs a B-29 Superfortress. Its slower than an A6M5.
None of the Japanese fighters were really suited to making high alt intercepts against fast, large, high flying strategic bombers. Not compared to what the Luftwaffe had in 1944-45. That being said, they did the best they could with what they had. Had they had access to 100 octane fuel, and had a large reserve of trained pilots, and had enough logistics and supplies to keep them operational they would have done much better vs the B-29 raids.
In closing if anybody is waiting for a Japanese fighter in AH that is going to zoom up to engage a B-29 and is just "way better" than a Ki-84 or an N1K2...there is no such fighter forthcoming. The J2M is "about as good" as those two with a slightly better climb rate but its slower than a Ki-84. Its armament is the same as an N1K2 (4 x 20mm). Not saying we should not get the Raiden, I think we should as AH is about having the WW2 planes they flew and I would welcome it to the lineup. Same with the Ki-45, add it just dont be surprised a its very average speed and climb.
KI-84lb might be a little more useful than the standard KI-84
-
If memory serves, it was SOP to depressurize the plane before entering the target area.
- oldman
My understanding is that you are correct but that, being crewed by immortal 20 year olds and liking the flying in shirtsleeves and no oxygen, most planes flew combat pressurized. This is from a video interview with a crew. Take it for what its worth.
-
I think I remember reading this same comment and someone with technical experience, or who read cumulative practical reports, replying that shouldn't be reason enough. Were any of the other bombers in AH designed this way?
Most of the U.S. radial engines used during the war used magnesium components to save weight. That includes the R-2800 that's on the F6F, F4U, and P-47, among others. It wasn't a problem with magnesium in the engine. It was that the way they designed the cowling for the engines restricted air flow to the rear cylinders of the engine, and at high-power, low speed conditions, the cylinder head temps would go sky-high. The resulting high temperatures would cause valve failure, which in turn could create catastrophic engine failure. The resulting fires could be so hot as to ignite the magnesium engine parts, which would in turn burn so hot so that they quickly damaged the wing spar, which was very close to the back of the engine compartment. So, as has been discussed in other threads, it wasn't a problem with magnesium, it was a problem with engine cooling.
And, with regard to IJA aircraft performance vs. B-29s, remember that they would strip down the aircraft, removing armor, radio equipment, small-caliber weaponry, etc. and use these lightened aircraft to attack the bombers. So, our in-game IJA aircraft should perform worse at the same altitudes, as did those that were used to attack B-29s during the war. In another thread, Baumer posted the B-29 operational loss numbers and a mere fraction were lost to fighter intercept.
-
To be honest, B-29 was known to catch fire. I'll have to wait till I get home to find the exact passage, but something around the engine was made out of magnesium to save weight. Unfortunately for the aircrews, magnesium is extremely flammable.
Oh yes...I saw a Korean Pilot run an F-4D (Magnesium Brake housing?) off the runway into to rice patties cause the brakes were on fire. It kept from destroying the entire craft minus landing gear. The brakes burned under water & mud for over an hour. Why would you make a part known to get hot out of Mg? :huh
-
Thanks Stoney.
-
Why would you make a part known to get hot out of Mg? :huh
Because (1) it saves weight over other alloys and (2) as long as its operated within the design specs of the system, its perfectly safe. You go kick tires down at your local airport, and almost 100% of the wheels on those aircraft are made out of magnesium alloy. The rotors (the part that gets hot) are made out of steel typically.
I'll keep screaming this until the community internalizes it--magnesium engine accessory cases were not an issue on the B-29. Cylinder cooling, cylinder cooling, cylinder cooling was the problem. Otherwise, every American aircraft that used a radial engine would have displayed the same characteristics.
-
None of the planes you suggested could catch and kill B29s was Japanese.
- oldman
The Japanese really didn't have an interceptor that was fully capable of intercepting the B-29s when flying at high altitudes (30,000 - 33,000ft), the Raiden was the most successful of the interceptors when engaging at high altitude and even then the Raiden struggled.
Oldman -
We also don't have any of the Japanese fighters that were used to attack the B-29s when they flew high. I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed by this update. Only new plane is the B-29, which will end up seeing next to no use. Not even useful for scenarios, since we don't have the Japanese planeset to go against it. I keep thinking every new update is going to be the "big one" with some Russian or Japanese planes to fill the chasms in the planeset.
Even if we did have planes like the Raiden or Ki-100, they would still struggle intercepting B-29s at high altitude, just like they did in real life.
In RL history, Curtis Lemay ordered the B-29s to low altitude incendiary bombing raids due to poor high altitude high-explosive bomb accuracy, and because Japanese cites of the 1940's were highly flammable.
EDIT: context added
LeMay ordered that incendiary bombs also be used and not their exclusive use. For night time raids, the first B-29 group over the target would be the pathfinders dropping their flares, the 2nd group would be carrying incendiaries to mark the saturation area and the remaining groups would usually be loaded with either general purpose or general purpose (Composit B) 500 pound bombs. Sometimes, some bombers would have a mix of incendiary and general purpose but that all depended on the mission parameters and target.
Bombing accuracy from high altitude wasn't the only reason the bombers were ordered lower. B-29s groups taking off from the recently captured islands in the Pacific would have to fly against the Jet Stream on the way to the target and taxed the engines and significantly shortened their life span and increased the likelihood of engine malfunction. People tend not to realize that wind speeds up in the Jet Stream could reach speeds up to 250mph. B-29 crews flying out of India and China faced the same problem but on the return leg of the portion over Japan, increasing the time spent over enemy territory.
another interesting point that probably isn't modeled in the 29...when you punch holes in a thermos...it makes for explosive problems...pressurization problems would require them to drop below 10k and make for a very long flight home...
After switching to low level bombing raids, B-29s regularly flew below 10,000ft to and from the target. The only exceptions would be those on the top of the "stair step" formation and that would usually be during the attack run to and from the target. The average bombing altitude for the low level raids (both night time and daylight formation raids) was between 4,500ft - 15,000ft. It was also very common that cruising altitudes was 400ft for the group at the bottom of the step formation and 1,200ft for the group at the top of the step.
No... he ordered them "lower." Low alt means below 15k. LeMay ordered the bombers "down" to 23k.
No, LeMay ordered the bombers to fly at very low altitudes enroute to the target and then low altitude bombing runs. He didn't just order them to fly a few thousand feet lower. This not only ordered for night time bombing raids but also for the daylight formation raids because LeMay wanted to send the bombers to Japan with maximum bomb loads and that was not possible if ordered to fly higher. Like I mentioned in my comment above, en route to the target the group comprosing the bottom step of the formation would be at 400 feet while the group making the top of the step would be at 1,200ft. Then on the bombing run, they would then climb to their low altitude bomb run, which again depending on the groups position in the formation, could be as low as 4,300 feet or as high as 15,000 feet.
For example, on the March 10 night raid over Tokyo the first group came in and bombed from 5,300ft and the top group came in and bombed from 12,300ft.
Re B-29 low level alts: The incindiery bomb raids were conducted at night from alts of @5000-9000 feet. Japanese flak and night fighters were nowhere near as effective as the Luftwaffes and so the losses were judged to be within reasonable %. The first such raid mass raid were done in March 1945. The benefits were; fewer fighters intercepting and much greater damage to the targets compared to high alt day raids with conventional HE loads.
Incendiary bombs were also used in the low level daylight formation raids and as mentioned earlier, the night time missions didn't just drop Incendiary bombs, general purpose bombs were used as well.
Japanese flak was effective at night, though at first with the change of tactics to low level bombing raids it did take a short period of the time for the Japanese gunners to adapt. Soon patterns in the B-29s bombing runs started to emerge (like speed, direction, altitudes) and the flak fire started to increase in accuracy and more B-29s started to get shot down or receive damage from flaks, particularly 40mm AA fire. The Japanese also would target either individual B-29s or flights caught in their searchlights instead of firing rolling flak barrages.
As for Japanese night interceptors...sometimes they would take off in large numbers, other times in very small numbers or not at all. When they would take off to intercept, they were most likely to tail the formation if they made visual contact and report their speed, altitude and heading to the flak batteries and often not press the attack. Also, a lot of B-29 crews would report seeing night fighters but the fighters were flying as though they were in a hunting pattern looking for them and this was mostly attributed to the lack of radar on the Japanese night fighters and they were visually looking for the glow of the B-29's exhaust stacks. In one night mission, a B-29 crew reported seeing close to 20 night fighters all milling around but not engaging until they were over the target and illuminated by the glow of the flames from the burning target and then only 1 fighter dove to intercept but the pilot didn't see if it was destroyed by the tail gunner on the B-29 that was being attacked or by a 40mm flak burst.
ack-ack
-
Something to add here as well...little has been mentioned of the ramming attacks made vs B-29s. These were common. Not exclusive but they were done or attempted frequently enough by IJAAF units in a variety of types, the Ki-45 being among them. Lacking aircraft of high alt performance and trained pilots I guess its not surprising. Even the Luftwaffe raised Fw 190 'Rammjager' units that were formed for similar tactics late in the war (1944) although I think perhaps they had a somewhat less fatalistic outlook as the IJAAF pilots, presumabley they were to attempt a ram attack if all else failed and to bail out and survive the sortie to fight another day. Dangerous as it was I get the impression that few of the IJAAF crews that rammed survived the attack.
-
Something to add here as well...little has been mentioned of the ramming attacks made vs B-29s. These were common. Not exclusive but they were done or attempted frequently enough by IJAAF units in a variety of types, the Ki-45 being among them. Lacking aircraft of high alt performance and trained pilots I guess its not surprising. Even the Luftwaffe raised Fw 190 'Rammjager' units that were formed for similar tactics late in the war (1944) although I think perhaps they had a somewhat less fatalistic outlook as the IJAAF pilots, presumabley they were to attempt a ram attack if all else failed and to bail out and survive the sortie to fight another day. Dangerous as it was I get the impression that few of the IJAAF crews that rammed survived the attack.
As was dropping WP bombs over the B-29s, something I didn't know the Japanese did and thought it was only the Germans that tried it.
ack-ack
-
KI-84lb might be a little more useful than the standard KI-84
Or a ki84 without a fuel handicap. <cough>
-
Be that as it may, I still think that in our arenas th 29's will have a tough time flying at 10-15k against fighters. Let's face it. In general our sticks are more aggressive and skillful than the under-trained late war Japanese flyers and we have access to German bomber killers. Given that I would rather not risk the perks coming in at low alt.
-
so far, i love the b29. ive found many uses for it other than just the sole bombing role.
sometimes i'll join buff missions. but instead of taking a b17 or b24, i'll take a single b29. jettison my bombs. and use the ship as a gunning platform to protect the other bombers with.
i havent risked taking up a full formation of 29s in the MA.
ive made 7 sorties in the MA in a b29. 6 were succesful landings. i had 1 failed attempt due to my elevators/rudder/ailerons breaking off when i went into a shallow dive (faceplanted right into the water)
and have 3 kills (me262,me110,p51D) to my credit with no losses due to enemy fire.
in the DA. i have 13 sorties. with 12 kills to my credit with only 1 lost to enemy fire (due to engine flame)
tuesday when it came out, us in the DA had a mini scenario with it. where 8 b29's took off from a35 and was intercepted by 9 nikkis and 15 ki84s. all enemy planes were shot down with the loss of 2 b29's.
we also had b29 furball fights. which were very very fun. the b29 is alot more manueverable than you'd think a bomber of its size would be. just some highlights:
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/Untitled-57.png)
l
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/Untitled-58.png)
l
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/Untitled-59.png[img]
l
[img]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/Untitled-60.png)
l
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/Untitled-61.png)
l
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/Untitled-62.png)
l
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/Untitled-63.png)
l
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/Untitled-64.png)
l
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/Untitled-65.png)
l
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/Untitled-67.png)
i ended up wining the furball with 2 b29 kills and landed my b29 with 2 engine leaks.
if anyone is up to a fun b29 vs b29 fight. i'd be happy to oblige :salute
-
Will make a point to look for single Rook B-29's next month when my self & my squad returns to late war. :aok
-
Can anyone explain this? I upped a formation of B-29's, perk cost at the time was appx 380 perks, flew a lenghtly hi alt mission , landed appx 7000 damage points but a minus -127 perk points . Mission was successful but I lost perks.
Anyone?
OldBull
Avengers
-
lost a drone landing?
-
I also believe that the population balance adjustment to perk price may have played a role. IIRC, you 'take out' however many perks it costs to take off in the plane, and if you land it succesfully you get back how many it would cost to take off in the plane at the moment you land.
-
I also believe that the population balance adjustment to perk price may have played a role. IIRC, you 'take out' however many perks it costs to take off in the plane, and if you land it succesfully you get back how many it would cost to take off in the plane at the moment you land.
It has been confirmed elsewhere that you are refunded your exact
'perk price' amount shown at the start of your sortie, if all aircraft
return successfully.
-
Can anyone explain this? I upped a formation of B-29's, perk cost at the time was appx 380 perks, flew a lenghtly hi alt mission , landed appx 7000 damage points but a minus -127 perk points . Mission was successful but I lost perks.
Anyone?
OldBull
Avengers
380/3=126.6
You lost a drone.
-
True I did lose a drone letting down, but did not expect to get into negative numbers considering a 7000 + point mission
OldBull
-
True I did lose a drone letting down, but did not expect to get into negative numbers considering a 7000 + point mission
Please note the OBJ rating of the B-29: 3 - which means you only get very, very few perks for each destroyed object.
-
I can vouch for that also. I lost ailerons in a VERY shallow dive. IAS was less than 325 MPH. TAS was lees than 350.
Methinks there are bugs to be ironed out with this bird. No way should you be losing control surfaces in such a manner.
Something else which happened to me. I jumped to another plane to get a better targeting solution on a bandit. When I went back to the #1 plane, I could not see any of my instruments. I was no longer in the pilots seat. Any of them.
same exact thing happened to me today,lost my instruments for duration of flight, after an epic battle with a p-47,in which my waist gunner cut his wing off, :neener:I had been moving from plane to plane in the diff gunner positions, when I returned my instruments were gone,just a blur :headscratch:
-
That's because you returned to position 1 in a drone aircraft....I made that mistake once too. You've got to go back to the lead bomber position 1 and your instruments will be just fine.
-
Non bullet related burning. They overheated VERY easily especially in early service times.
It was standard practice to have a member of the ground crew standing under each engine nacelle at startup with a fire extinguisher in order to put out the engine if it caught fire when they tried to start it.
-
That's because you returned to position 1 in a drone aircraft....I made that mistake once too. You've got to go back to the lead bomber position 1 and your instruments will be just fine.
{FACEPALM}