Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: RotBaron on June 24, 2013, 10:51:37 PM
-
Asking for tips on how not to wreck on takeoff with full fuel and the heavy load of 40 500's...
The field I tried to takeoff from was 5.9 alt and looked flat for ~500yds after runway. I wrecked twice on takeoff due to small bumps after runway I noticed after inspecting the field later in a jeep.
I tried taking off with full flaps and wep on from start the first time and no input on the stick.
The 2nd try I didn't deploy any flaps until I was fully rolling with wep on. Toward the end of the runway I pulled up on the stick but the tail hit the ground and broke off.
~180 perks --->poof
I believe the base is 179 on the huge map, NE spawn...
-
Do you need full fuel?
-
Actually in this case I may have...It was going to be necessary to fly across the entire map to reach the strats and I wasn't sure 75% was going to be enough, that is why I chose 100%
-
1) Inspect the field with F5 & F8 from the tower, much better overview than driving around in a jeep
2) Ideally select a coastal field with a clear path over sea
3) Retract your flaps at spawn. Give full power and WEP and deploy flaps (1 or 2 notches at most) only at the end of the runway
4) Don't force it by pulling back on the stick. If that's really necessary at takeoff, you selected the wrong base in the first place.
6) With maximum T/O weight, lower bases are better than higher ones. The bonus of high alt bases is totally overrated at high alt long range bomber sorties.
7) When in doubt test takeoff from the base in OFFLINE mode. If you are going to spend 2h in a bomber sortie, don't save on the 5 minutes such a test will take.
-
test takeoff from the base in OFFLINE mode. If you are going to spend 2h in a bomber sortie, don't save on the 5 minutes such a test will take.
:aok :aok :aok
-
Don't forget, the single runway at a small airfield is only about as long as the shortest runway you'll find at a medium or large airfield (*hint*).
-
Thanks for the info and suggestion re: offline, great idea and will do that next time.
I don't think there are many cases where I'll try 100% fuel again, however, I had a lot of work I was going to go AFK and do, with the wind now I was going to check back about every half hour and correct my course. But, I've had the situation twice that I recall with a B-29 where I took 50% and had to make all kinds of adjustments to my plan to make it to the nearest base. I'll
Babalonian: I said the same thing the other nite, but iirc AKAK said that is not the case, that all airfield's runways are the same length. AckAck, that was you, correct?
-
O'rly... Two stories and the truth, so check it out yourself; a quick n dirty test is to fire up a jeep, go to one end of a runway, floor it for the opposite end and time your run.
-
This is another one of those times when the teachers were right when they said you would need math some day.
We have square airfields basically.
Lets use that funny three sided thingy, a triangle.
We wont bother with isoscelese, equilateral or any of that higher level stuff.
You have two short sides and a long side.
You take the two short sides and put them on two edges of the field, with the ends of them touching.
The long side then connects to those and forms our funny triangle.
Still with us???
[ pausing a minute to let you decide. ]
Now a short side is the same length as the runway that goes from the middle of each side of the field to the other midpoint.
On a large field that would be the two runways that make an X .
And it follows, hopefully, that the long side of the triangle, note long, corresponds to the diagonal runway.
Still with us???
[ pausing another minute to let you decide. ]
Question- Are all AH runways the same length?
With a followup- Which runway do you think is the longest?
-
This is another one of those times when the teachers were right when they said you would need math some day.
We have square airfields basically.
Question- Are all AH runways the same length?
With a followup- Which runway do you think is the longest?
In other words, the diagonal (corner to corner) runways should be about 1.4 times longer than the central (N-S, E-W) runways. Provided they form a right triangle and you believe Pythagoras (or your geometry teacher).
:salute
-
1) Inspect the field with F5 & F8 from the tower, much better overview than driving around in a jeep
2) Ideally select a coastal field with a clear path over sea
3) Retract your flaps at spawn. Give full power and WEP and deploy flaps (1 or 2 notches at most) only at the end of the runway
4) Don't force it by pulling back on the stick. If that's really necessary at takeoff, you selected the wrong base in the first place.
6) With maximum T/O weight, lower bases are better than higher ones. The bonus of high alt bases is totally overrated at high alt long range bomber sorties.
7) When in doubt test takeoff from the base in OFFLINE mode. If you are going to spend 2h in a bomber sortie, don't save on the 5 minutes such a test will take.
Lusche, I'm curious as to why you would retract your flaps. A notch or two would help with attaining sufficient lift at a lower airspeed. Would they not? I know in the real world flaps are used for take offs, especially on the heavies.
According to this War Department training film (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/B-29.html) the flaps should be set to 25* for take off. And to all those people that want AH to be more realistic in engine management watch the film and see everything that is involved just to get a B-29 in the air.
Thanks to Zeno's for the film. If you haven't visited Zeno's you should. They are a wealth of knowledge on everything having to do with WWII aircraft.
-
Lusche, I'm curious as to why you would retract your flaps. A notch or two would help with attaining sufficient lift at a lower airspeed. Would they not? I know in the real world flaps are used for take offs, especially on the heavies.
3) Retract your flaps at spawn. Give full power and WEP and deploy flaps (1 or 2 notches at most) only at the end of the runway
As you can see, I advise to use the flaps at takeoff, just not during the initial accelleration phase where they just add drag. Of course, this is not the procedure what I would recommend to anyone flying a real B-29. ;)
-
3) Retract your flaps at spawn. Give full power and WEP and deploy flaps (1 or 2 notches at most)only at the end of the runway
Yep I missed that in the first read.
Getting a full up B-29 off the ground and climbing is not an easy thing as I have discovered. My most successful attempts were at A1 in the TA taking off to the SW 100% fuel, 40, 500 lbrs, and the big gun package. Fortunately the ground drops away from the base at the end of the runway. I tried several attempts at a sea level base and could not clear the small obstructions at the end of the runway no matter what configuration I tried.
Not sure why anyone would need that much fuel as in the TA it is 326 minutes at 3k alt. That would be 163 minutes in the main arenas with a 2.0 burn multiplier, or darn near three hours at just above sea level.
-
Not sure why anyone would need that much fuel as in the TA it is 326 minutes at 3k alt. That would be 163 minutes in the main arenas with a 2.0 burn multiplier, or darn near three hours at just above sea level.
For an efficient usage of that much bomb load, you easily get towards those numbers.
Allow me a word on loadout selection first:
guess most occasional B-29 pilots simply chose the 40x500 loadout because it's the larges one in terms of mass and destruction. Only to waste all that awesome power by totally over saturating a target area.
For many sorties, a different and potentially much lighter loadout makes much more sense if you bomb with your head, not your butt. A pilot using the 12x1k loadout for factories AND city, or the 8x2k for factories or the 56x250lb for the City alone and bombing with precision instead of carpeting, will have a much lighter plane with less climb and transit time.
If you take the 40x500lb loadout (or the 56x250 one), you will have to make a lot of passes over the target to make full use of that number of bombs. In this case, 100% may be very well justified. Especially as with the 40x500 loadout you need a lot of time to reach high altitudes (75 minutes to 30.1k from sea level).
The other case coming to my mind is when attacking retreated strats on a huge map like compello. (Such a mission resulted in my longest bomber sortie so far: Compello, 12x1k, attacking retreated strats in the west, total mission time 2 hours 50 minutes.)
Generally, I took 75% for all my strat raids except for the 40x500 loadout (rarely chosen) and the 56x250 loadout, both at 100% fuel. For a strat attack, 50% can suddenly become a mighty tight budget if you got a fuel tank hit and a couple of Ta 152Hs are following you home...
-
I do the same, in a nut:
Clean/no flaps = slightly faster acceleration = faster achievement of minimum TO speeds = slightly less runway length required = a BFD when talking about lifting heavy B-29s. You'll need the flaps to take off, but not to achieve TO-speed.
You then must be careful to not use too much flaps or loose that speed you've been gaining, as the flap deployment will pop you up off the runway if done right, but the higher your pop/rise the more speed you just lost.
-
This is another one of those times when the teachers were right when they said you would need math some day.
We have square airfields basically.
Lets use that funny three sided thingy, a triangle.
We wont bother with isoscelese, equilateral or any of that higher level stuff.
You have two short sides and a long side.
You take the two short sides and put them on two edges of the field, with the ends of them touching.
The long side then connects to those and forms our funny triangle.
Still with us???
[ pausing a minute to let you decide. ]
Now a short side is the same length as the runway that goes from the middle of each side of the field to the other midpoint.
On a large field that would be the two runways that make an X .
And it follows, hopefully, that the long side of the triangle, note long, corresponds to the diagonal runway.
Still with us???
[ pausing another minute to let you decide. ]
Question- Are all AH runways the same length?
With a followup- Which runway do you think is the longest?
KP I don't believe it would be the "diagonal" runway, but as math was never my thing, maybe I've misunderstood some inputs. Diagonal is probably better stated as parallel and parallel to what. If the hypotenuse (longest side) is the side placed on one side of the theoretical box surrounding any airfield then the longest runway would always be the one that parallels the hypotenuse. Or better stated, the long runway parallels any side of the box. That should then be the the n-s & e-w runways, provided the runway length touches the corners of the box. Correct?
Babalon: your test would work as well, but I don't have a stopwatch, with a minute hand I could only arrive at results with +/-, do you have a stopwatch?
Edit: now I have remember what a medium field looks like, have to go find the maps.
Further edit: now I'm all confused, as I reread this "You take the two short sides and put them on two edges of the field, with the ends of them touching.
Need to start over using the above quote...
-
From a quick visual observation of all 3 airfields, the length of the all the runways is not the same.
From the visual inspection you are correct KP, that the diagonal runways on the large airfield are the longest, and in theory of course that makes sense as it would be greater distance to traverse a square from say NE to SW , than comparatively going from N to S.
So, for the large airfields, assuming placing the triangle tip at the corner of the base is the correct method to do so, the long runways are the NE to SW or NW to SE.
Med airfield: it is the NE to SW.
And for the small, the length is? I believe the easiest way to know this is if HTC would tell us or to use a triangle on a printout where the printout has no variables in dimension, i.e. the size of the compared squares must be equal. At some point there must be a known distance to come up with the other variables.
-
Or two of you could drive out and sit at opposite ends of each runway and read the icon distances!
-
Due to the way the B-29 was loaded in real life, you can OVER LOAD it past max take-off in this game by mix-matching too much fuel and too much bombs. 40x500 is the max load of bombs. That means you CANNOT take the max fuel. I mean, realistically it's possible in this game, but you're lifting off beyond max takeoff weight limits and the airframe wasn't designed for that. If you want that many bombs, fly at reduced power once you're up to save fuel (that's how they did it in the war -- couldn't fly to Japan and back unless you cruised the entire way there and back).
Those max bomb loads were never dropped from extreme alts. They were carpet bombed from much lower alts. They looked at the mission profile and found out how much fuel they'd need to get to target alt (which wasn't very high), to cruise to target and back, and then how much free space was left. They filled that space with bombs. Some of these missions came in between 5k and 10k alt, though in the dark of night for protection.
For the missions that went up into the rare air, they flew with much smaller bombloads. Often only 5000 lbs or so on the longest and highest missions. The absolute maximum was around 125,000 lbs for MTO weight. Some sources say this stretches up to 130,000-35,000 ish, but 125,000 seems to be a better mean weight for MTO.
In AH when you take 40x500lb bombs and 100% fuel, you are just shy of 145,000 lbs. WAY overloaded. When you take 40x500lb and 75% you're still way overloaded at just shy of 135,000 lbs. At 50% fuel you finally get under the MTO by getting your weight down to about just shy of 125,000 lbs. And that was WITH a 10,000 foot smooth runway to assist in prolonged takeoffs.
Moral of the story is: Don't take 40 eggs if you want a long sortie. Taking extra fuel doesn't solve the problem, because your time to climb is in the toilet now, and your acceleration time if you ever level is utter crap too. You screw up your entire flight and make it 20x worse on yourself. Come in lower, or take less bombs, but either way fly LIGHTER. Take the 20x500lb load if you want full fuel. 20x500lb and 75% is just shy of the 125,000lb MTO, and 20x500lb and 100% is just shy of the hypothetical 135,000 lbs MTO.
40x500lbs was never meant to be anything other than a low and fast drop. You want to take it up to 35k, you're going to suffer the pains of doing so. I.E. crap takeoffs, crap climbs, crap accelerations, and crap turnaround times on repeat drops.
-
Another thing to add to your bag of tricks. After you spawn, make a U turn, go beyond runway to grass
(make sure it's relatively level).
Roll a bit then U turn again towards runway.
You can extend your runway by a good bit.
Don't auto-takeoff, right after liftoff go level a bit to gain more speed.
:cheers: Oz
-
Would letting the engines warm up at idle before going help?
Also could holding brakes while applying throttle until it starts to roll with brakes activated help?
-
Would letting the engines warm up at idle before going help?
Not in AH. A trick I've found is since the engines are starting cold on the runway, as soon as they finish starting-up, apply WEP and from the time the engines warm up from cold to normal operating temp is free WEP... in some fighters this is as much as 60-seconds after wheeles up, in B-29s I think it's until about the end of the runway.
Also could holding brakes while applying throttle until it starts to roll with brakes activated help?
I do this method and believe that yes it does help. Apply brakes > apply full throttle > release brakes. There is really no need to hold the brakes with this method for more than 2-3 seconds though, I believe (hitech or someone said) in AH the game-code limits the real 100%-power aplicable on the runway for aircraft on auto take-off - to limits that would prevent it an aircraft from say torqueing itself over onto its back or ripping a wing/gear off. As your aircraft gains speed down the runways, this "governor" applies more power until you're actually going say 60-knts down the runway and full 100% throttle.
-
The holding of brakes only really helps in that you get full thrust instead of ramping it up. It means for a few seconds you get slower acceleration if you just roll normally (as your plane is still revving up and as you start overcoming friction with the ground). Holding brakes and then releasing just gives you a full "kick" to get going as fast as possible. I use that same trick on the 262s because they are very slow-revving and you need all the thrust you can for acceleration on take-off.
EDIT: But in all honesty take less gas. Or less bombs. See my previous reply about max takeoff weights and the loadouts in this game. HTC warned players when they released the B29 you can select a loadout beyond the MTO of the real plane due to the way the hangar system works.
-
The field I tried to takeoff from was 5.9 alt
Well there's your problem. Your taking off from an alpine base that was built by mountain ski troops.
-
Since I expected to take my time getting to alt the location of the base I'm taking off from is not as important as how the base is set up.
Choose a large field and take off on the longest diagonal runway. Choose a base with some altitude that drops away at the end of the runway. Roll, (don't forget Wep), clear the edge of the base and nose down for speed as it drops away. Hope this helps. Learning this cost me about 500 Buff perkies.
-
Since I expected to take my time getting to alt the location of the base I'm taking off from is not as important as how the base is set up.
Example: If someone really wants to take off with the max loadout, 40x500 & 100% fuel, he will take 75 minutes to reach 30k from sea level.
Taking off from 4k would reduce that time only by something like 7 minutes.
Do as Zoney said and look for best setup base: Long runway, no obstacles, and not much turning required on your way to the target.
-
In hindsight, it prolly makes more sense now to find the longer stretches on large airfields and choose a base that is closer to the front, even if it means doubling back to get to a proper alt. Less fuel, more lift so ~maybe accomplish about the same.
In the instance that I lost these, I wanted to be able to focus attention elsewhere while the autoclimb did the work for me...
Seems the lesson here is 100% fuel is too much for a significant amount of runways, and scout it out well first. I do wonder though if the runway I mention will accommodate 75% fuel. I think the base is 165 on Tagma.
:salute
-
I do wonder though if the runway I mention will accommodate 75% fuel. I think the base is 165 on Tagma.
Don't wonder...
7) When in doubt test takeoff from the base in OFFLINE mode.
;)
-
Take off way back and you raise a flag that there might be a bomber climbing.
I prefer to takeoff from a clear field near the front and climb while circling the grid.
But that's just me. :)
Skuzzy, I did hit 'reply' , but I'm pretty sure my tone and attitude were within acceptable limits. :aok
-
The reason 25% flaps was set before take-off roll was because it's not something that can be done 1 second before rotating in real life, but in AH, you will gain extra speed by delaying flaps until the aircraft is just about to rotate. If you do this, you will reach "V1/rotate" faster than if you set flaps at 25%, this gives a noticable improvement in acceleration.
The bishop are good at destroying ords in a wide area of bases, pushing bombers back further and further from front line bases, even just destroying 4-5 base ords can double knight bomber flight times and make them far more conspicuous as Fuzeman says. The nme bombers reach the front line faster and are less noticable.
Coastal bases are probably best, but do still check the runway out, some have trees at the end. I love the b29 in the game, offline I tested it a lot against flak under 8000 and I found that it's similar to a lancaster, the big open canopy leads to pilot wounding, but it's a fast beast and carries a lot. It takes a surprising amount of damage. Lose the tailgun though and you are in trouble, can't dogfight like a lanc, the wings will snap like a b24. Even 1 b29 with 8x2000lb can probably WF a town.
-
I have serious doubts about flaps in real life vs what AH models. I tend to agree with your comment there.
That said....
TAKE LESS FUEL!
anything over 10,000 lbs you cannot take 100% fuel or you're overloaded. For perspective, it took just over an hour to get to altitude at REDUCED throttle in the real plane, when following the real maximum weight limits. Requiring 75 minutes at FULL power is absurd. In real life you'd melt the engines in 30 minutes at that power setting. You're burning more fuel and wasting way more time, when you'd just climb to alt faster and get the job done.
Once your weight goes past a certain point it takes you longer to get anything done, requiring more fuel, burning more just to move all that extra weight... Just try it lighter. Honestly. You may love it. You'll climb better, level faster, get on target, and you can even level out and cruise if you want. Then when you drop you can nose down to descend while saving gas while RTB.
-
This thread needs more facts, so I'm going to publish a number of updated climb profiles for the B-29 early next week, monday or tuesday. They should come in handy for mission planning as well.
Stay tuned :airplane:
-
Once your weight goes past a certain point it takes you longer to get anything done, requiring more fuel, burning more just to move all that extra weight..
Uh, no.
Even though you get somewhat diminishing returns, you will always get more flight time at altitude by taking more fuel. At no point it will take you that much more flight time to reach 30k than the additional fuel did give you. It's another question if it's really necessary to load yourself up that much, but it works.
For example
- 75% fuel and 40x500 bombs - ~55 minutes to 25k and ~60 minutes to 30k
-100% fuel and 40x500 bombs - ~43 minutes to 25k and ~75 minutes to 30k
i.e. you take 15 minutes longer to reach 30k for about 42 minutes longer endurance, resulting in a net gain of 27 minutes of flight time at 30k
And there are - rarely though - situation in which you need all that fuel: When you are attacking retreated strats on a large map. Been there done that. Mostly with lesser bomb loadouts, but I have taken the ultra heavy 40x500+100% setup when I figured I would be the only raider on those strats for hours.
-
As promised:
Climb Profiles for the B-29 in various loadout states
First an overview of the bomb/fuel combinations:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/B-29%20climb%20profiles/B-29weights_zps4b11078a.jpg)
The three bolded loadouts are the light/medium/heavy variants I'm now going to present in the form climb profiles. All tests had been conducted at fuel burn 2.0 (MA standard), no wind, full WEP at takeoff until it runs out.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/B-29%20climb%20profiles/B-29profile80x100_zps9c9c5d9d.jpg)
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/B-29%20climb%20profiles/B-29profile56x250_zps09fa6d41.jpg)
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/B-29%20climb%20profiles/B-29profile40x500_zps16c3b318.jpg)
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/B-29%20climb%20profiles/B-29profile100fuel_zpsa478afbe.jpg)
-
have you tried auto takeoff?
-
So, for the loadout in question (40x 500lbs, 20,000 lbs total) taking an overload of fuel nearly doubles the time to climb to 25k (a reasonable, average alt). You were right that my theory of diminishing returns wasn't accurate, but the extra time duration doesn't help if it takes you almost an hour (~55min) to get to 25k, when going to 50% takes 35 minutes for the same alt.
I assume that 2.8h means 2.8 hours at full throttle... It seems a bit misleading if you have to spend 1 of those hours climbing laboriously up to alt (or more than an hour if you go up to 30K, which most B29s are tempted to do). Meanwhile the guy at 50% has already leveled out, and at speed is covering a new full sector in less than 5 minutes. At 300mph you cross a 25mi sector in 5 minutes, and he's going much faster than that at 355mph off-wep. He can climb to 25k, level out, and then cross 5 sectors at full speed in the time it takes the full load to even level out. Meanwhile he still has 30-40 minutes left at the 1 hour mark, in which he can then cross bare minimum 8 more sectors. That's all at full throttle. Lowering the settings even a tad will extend this noticably and gentle descent while rtb increases speed while decreasing fuel use, extending range much more as well.
Even if you absolutely wanted to loiter around after your bombs were gone, 75% would be the max you should ever take with those 40x 500lb loads.
This enlightening data reinforces my opinion that the historic weight limits are also the best limits for use with our game's B-29.
-
So, for the loadout in question (40x 500lbs, 20,000 lbs total) taking an overload of fuel nearly doubles the time to climb to 25k (a reasonable, average alt). You were right that my theory of diminishing returns wasn't accurate, but the extra time duration doesn't help if it takes you almost an hour (~55min) to get to 25k, when going to 50% takes 35 minutes for the same alt.
(...)
Even if you absolutely wanted to loiter around after your bombs were gone, 75% would be the max you should ever take with those 40x 500lb loads.
Of course % is much lighter and thus faster at alt no doubt. And I'm surely not advocating taking max fuel and I'm not even advocating max bombload all the time (depending on target the other loadouts can be more effective). In fact, 40x500 is a rare choice for me only used in special cases.
However, there are times, when it is all about the range. Sometimes the target (I'm thinking almost exclusively of the strats) is very far away so that 50% will be way too little to reach it. Even 75% can be very tight of a budget if you are making many passes over the strats, as the 56x250, 80x100 (city busting loadouts) or 40x500 do require. Unless you are not going for precision and just carpted everything, possibly even with .salvo. I never do that, if I'm going on a such long ride I want to make every bomb count as much as possible. A regular city busting attack requires 4-6 passes over the strats. And turning around an recalibrating takes a lot of time in the Superfortress.
For the record, this is not only a result of academical tests, but also of 186 B-29 missions I have flown since 9-1-2012, with more of 90% of them being strat runs. And I kept very detailed logs on all of them, including loadout, fuel, altitude and mission duration. So I gathered enough data to see how long my missions really were, and how much time I had to spend over my targets and what kind of problems I was running into.
So for the average strat run, my fuel loadout is 75% for the 20x500, 12x1k, 2x8k or 4x4k bomb load... I often could do with 50%, but there ain't much of a margin if you run in trouble (for example a fuel leak, or a persistent long range fighter who's only waiting to vulch you while landing). When I go city busting, with 80x100 or 56x250 (preferred), I take 100% fuel, as this mission can easily reach 2.5 hours for me (depending on distance to the strats and fighter defense).
My longest mission ever took me 2 hours and 50 minutes, attacking retreated strats with 12x1k.
For informational purposes: These are the bomb/fuel combinations and resulting takeoff weights of all but the last of my B-29 missions:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/loadouts_zpse5a61708.jpg)
Note that unlike many others, I almost never fly at altitudes above 30k, in fact 30K is usually the altitude I do fly in Komet Kountry only. My average B-29 in all of these sorties was 28K.
And the resume of all that?
Plan your mission. Know what you are going to hit. Select the best, and necessarily not the biggest load of bombs. Plan your route (use the charts above for optimum climbout phase) and flight level and select the appropriate fuel percentage. Drain the center fuel first, 'cause that's the one most likely to get hit by the puffy ack.
-
AWESOME charts Lusche!!! *files them away for later*
-
Concur,
Excellent work Sir Lusche!
It is rare that I don't do the comps myself, but in this case it would be a complete waste of time.
Recorded for future mission planning...TY,
-Rodent57
-
Superb charting Lusche! Thank you.
-
You clowns discussing geometry realize you can't spawn a B29 on the short runways at a large or medium field?
-
I never once got the impression that they were discussing launching from the short runways on a med or large field....they were pointing out that the longer runways would offer a better chance of getting airborne, and fundamental Euclidean geometry. Anyone with much experience launching buffs is likely to have noticed the runway restrictions. Those that haven't got some free experience (kinda like bartalk in the old days).
At worst, some folks reenergized some neuropathways that they haven't used in several decades thinking about right triangles.
On the positive side, a lot of people got free lessons in B29 loadouts, history of ops, tactical considerations in choosing departure bases, and time/distance performance charts.
I'd say it was a very useful thread (unlike the majority of threads)
- Rodent57
-
Thank you Lusche again.
And yes Rodent, rather enlightening and useful even though those neurons hadn't fired across that synapse for a few years.
-
have you tried auto takeoff?
I have used it offline on MED field it works when you get close to EoR, don't know if it'll work online.
-
You clowns discussing geometry realize you can't spawn a B29 on the short runways at a large or medium field?
You realise your foot is hanging out your arse because we are only referencing to them as a reference?...
Go ahead, figure out for yourself the short runway that you can't spawn bombers on at large and medium fields is only as long as the single runway at small airfields, I really don't care if you loose your bomber perks figuring out things your/a better way.
-
Nice to see the math on fuel load outs ! I thought a lot of extra time was being wasted trying to Carry 100% !! :airplane: