Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: tuton25 on September 05, 2012, 06:52:42 PM

Title: B-40
Post by: tuton25 on September 05, 2012, 06:52:42 PM
Based on the B-17 was designed to escourt bombers
All the bomb racks were removed for up to 30 .50 cal machineguns
(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/243/yb400oc.png/sr=1)
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Eric19 on September 05, 2012, 06:55:33 PM
+1 plz I've been waiting for someone to finally post the gunship b17  :devil it would be a monster in a furball
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: titanic3 on September 05, 2012, 06:56:43 PM
You know how badly abused this thing will be?
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: tuton25 on September 05, 2012, 07:01:40 PM
Perk it.........People won't just go diving into a furball then
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: RedBull1 on September 05, 2012, 07:06:43 PM
30 50 CALS?
THIRTY .FIFTY CALIBERS?!?!
You all realize if we get this, once 999000 is done with it this will be about what's left....right?

(http://www.japanfocus.org/data/bombed_out_tokyo.jpg)
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Karnak on September 05, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
YB-40, note the Y, was a failure in service tests and quickly withdrawn.  It could not keep up with the B-17s after they had dropped their bombs.

Also, it did not have thirty .50s.  It had sixteen and lots of ammunition if I recall correctly.
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Plawranc on September 05, 2012, 07:49:13 PM
While Karnak is right, it does however fit the criteria for addition to AH2's planeset.

It flew 48 sorties, scored 5 A2A kills or more, served IN COMBAT In squadron strength in the European theater. It was not a field mod, it was commissioned by the USAAC for operations. And at least 25 were built, possibly more converted.

Therefore, it does qualify. While it would be LONG after all other primary aircraft are modeled, this is a possibility.   

General characteristics

    Crew: 10
    Length: 74 ft 9 in (22.6 m)
    Wingspan: 103 ft 9 in (31.4 m)
    Height: 19 ft 1 in (5.8 m)
    Wing area: 1,527 ft² (141.9 m²)
    Empty weight: 54,900 lb (24,900 kg)
    Loaded weight: 63,500 lb (28,800 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 74,000 lb (34,000 kg)
    Powerplant: 4 × Wright R-1820-65 turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (895 kW) each

Performance

    Maximum speed: 292 mph (470 km/h)
    Cruise speed: 196 mph (315 km/h)
    Range: 2,260 mi (3,640 km)
    Service ceiling: 29,200 ft (8,900 m)
    Rate of climb: ft/min (m/s)
    Wing loading: 47.2 lb/ft² (231 kg/m²)
    Power/mass: 0.066 hp/lb (0.11 kW/kg)


Armament

    Guns: 18 (or more) × .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning M2 machine guns. Typically used 14-16, with room for up to 30.[citation needed]

Location    Rounds
Nose    2,200
Front top turret    2,500
Aft top turret    3,300
Ball turret    300
Waist guns    1,200
Tail guns    ,
Total    10,700

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Yb-40-gun-details.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Yb-40-42-5736-raf-kimbolton.png)
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: tuton25 on September 05, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
It would be fun....
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 05, 2012, 08:45:20 PM
While Karnak is right, it does however fit the criteria for addition to AH2's planeset.


It doesn't.  The YB-40 were used as part of a test program to gauge the feasibility of using up armed B-17s as escorts and once the test was completed, the planes were withdrawn from service.  The YB-40 never made full operational status nor enter into full production save the 58 that were built to take part in the test project.

Had the YB-40 entered into full production and operational service, the Y would have been dropped as it wouldn't be classified as test bed anymore.


ack-ack
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Plawranc on September 05, 2012, 09:14:29 PM
As far as I am aware.

The criteria is squadron strength, saw combat between 1939 to 45, no field mods.

It did, It did, It isn't.

Am I missing any criteria, if I am, then I withdraw my statement.
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Guppy35 on September 05, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Never squadron strength
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Butcher on September 05, 2012, 09:36:29 PM
As far as I am aware.

The criteria is squadron strength, saw combat between 1939 to 45, no field mods.

It did, It did, It isn't.

Am I missing any criteria, if I am, then I withdraw my statement.

It was a prototype, and some prototypes were tested in combat like the Yb-40 for example. Except the Project was canceled since it couldn't escort bomb loaded B-17s, it actually was to slow.
There were one X-b40 and 22 Y-b40s built, all of the 92nd Bomb Group at Alconbury ( I think?)

Biggest problem really was speed, Yb-40 could not stay in formations with B-17Fs loaded with bombs - they ended up having to fly maximum power. But not all was lost, the Chin Turret was later adapted for the G model B-17s.

There are dozens of aircrafts that were prototypes, not everyone chose to put them in combat, Japan for example had Ki-44s as prototypes and fielded a squadron to test them.
German's had a few Prototypes that ran into combat in the later stages of war, Do-335 - Ta-152 etc.

Some were put into production, some were not. If the Yb-40 ever was added in game, it would not have formations, and would not do so well vs a formation of buffs.

Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 05, 2012, 10:21:14 PM
I wonder how Old 666 would have faired in the ETO with its 19 .50 caliber machine guns?

ack-ack
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: donna43 on September 05, 2012, 10:46:05 PM
You know how badly abused this thing will be?

I second that.
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: tuton25 on September 05, 2012, 11:20:16 PM

German's had a few Prototypes that ran into combat in the later stages of war, Do-335 - Ta-152 etc.


If you are arguing against it we have this plane!!!
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Butcher on September 06, 2012, 05:59:16 AM
I wonder how Old 666 would have faired in the ETO with its 19 .50 caliber machine guns?

ack-ack

Not sure about the ETO, but imagine the B-40 in the PTO against the japanese who had a hard enough time shooting down 4 engine bombers.

I can see the Japanese screaming "PERK IT!!"
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: MAINER on September 08, 2012, 08:51:55 PM
+1 for the YB-40, just perk it
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: MK-84 on September 08, 2012, 09:34:35 PM
+1 for the YB-40, just perk it

I'm ok with this :)

...Because sometimes. You just want to up a Deathstar.  You dont want to bomb. You dont want to dogfight.  You just want to be a gunner.

A small perk perhaps, with formations enabled.  Not available if ords are down, a normal B17 cant up, specifically to prevent use for enemy capped base defense. 

Which makes me think of a wish...
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: aztec on September 09, 2012, 07:39:29 AM
<S> Mainer...which section of woods you in?
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Tracerfi on September 09, 2012, 07:43:23 AM
we must have a B17 Gunship +1
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: MAINER on September 09, 2012, 04:35:46 PM
<S> Mainer...which section of woods you in?

Mid coast Maine, Just south of Rockland on a peninsula called St. George.  :salute
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: aztec on September 10, 2012, 08:20:41 AM
Central Maine here...30 miles west of Bangor, little town named Corinna. Always nice to meet another Mainer here, <<S>>. :cheers:
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Rob52240 on September 17, 2012, 12:32:31 PM
we must have a B17 Gunship +1

The B-17 already makes a dandy gunship and already has 3x the firepower of the real thing.
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Butcher on September 17, 2012, 12:35:07 PM
If you are arguing against it we have this plane!!!

Difference is the Ta-152 was operational and in squadron strength, B-40 never put more then a handful up at a time, on this note you are looking at not having formations for the B-40, only a single plane.

Thats if HTC ever decides on adding it (which I dont think will happen)... It was a prototype, and never went into production.

It was tested in combat, but withdrawn shortly after, just like the B-17 packed with explosives and radio guided to bomb targets, it was a Prototype tested in combat, however if you read up a certain Kennedy volunteered for the mission ended up dying on it.
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Babalonian on September 17, 2012, 02:31:54 PM
We need more B-17 varients in AH, this could be a fun and viable one if perked or only allowed to score in attack mode.
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: JVboob on September 17, 2012, 02:52:29 PM
+1 it meets criteria.
no forms
only score in ATK
and perkd we need more perked buffs anyways
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Butcher on September 17, 2012, 04:44:31 PM
+1 it meets criteria.
no forms
only score in ATK
and perkd we need more perked buffs anyways

I'm all for perking something that barely did over 200mph with no formations enabled, be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Eric19 on September 17, 2012, 04:50:11 PM
I'm all for perking something that barely did over 200mph with no formations enabled, be like shooting fish in a barrel.

not if 999 got a hold of it you'd be dead before you got within firing range lol
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: 715 on September 18, 2012, 06:25:09 PM
OK, I'll bite: why does taking out the heavy bombs and adding a few light guns (and light gunners) make a plane much slower?  Extra drag from extra turrets??
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Volron on September 18, 2012, 06:29:21 PM
OK, I'll bite: why does taking out the heavy bombs and adding a few light guns (and light gunners) make a plane much slower?  Extra drag from extra turrets??

The amount of ammunition for all those guns easily made it heavier than the normal B-17's.  Before bombs were dropped, the YB's were able to stay with the formation but after bomb drop, they couldn't keep up and fell behind.
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Babalonian on September 18, 2012, 06:54:35 PM
OK, I'll bite: why does taking out the heavy bombs and adding a few light guns (and light gunners) make a plane much slower?  Extra drag from extra turrets??

You got it, it's the difference between rolling a 5lb-porcupine or 5lb-armadillo down a leaf-covered hill.
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Pigslilspaz on September 18, 2012, 09:57:55 PM
You got it, it's the difference between rolling a 5lb-porcupine or 5lb-armadillo down a leaf-covered hill.
Get the best of both worlds and roll a hedgehog
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: Butcher on September 18, 2012, 11:30:13 PM
OK, I'll bite: why does taking out the heavy bombs and adding a few light guns (and light gunners) make a plane much slower?  Extra drag from extra turrets??

Normal B-17 carried some 2500 rounds of ammo, B-40 carried like 10,500 rounds of ammo, plus the turrets themselves - a fully loaded YB-40 was like 4,000lbs heavier then a normal B-17.

Drag + overweight = slow.
Title: Re: B-40
Post by: MiloMorai on September 19, 2012, 07:42:21 AM
B-17G

Empty weight: 36,135 lb (16,391 kg)
Loaded weight: 54,000 lb (24,500 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 65,500 lb (29,700 kg)
Service ceiling: 35,600 ft (10,850 m)

YB-40

Empty weight: 54,900 lb (24,900 kg)
Loaded weight: 63,500 lb (28,800 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 74,000 lb (34,000 kg)
Service ceiling: 29,200 ft (8,900 m)

Armament

Guns: 18 (or more) × .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning M2 machine guns. Typically used 14-16.

Location    Rounds
Nose    2,200
Front top turret    2,500
Aft top turret    3,300
Ball turret    300
Waist guns    1,200
Tail guns    1,200
Total    10,700