Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: No9Squadron on September 13, 2013, 09:20:44 AM
-
1. B24s burned that much against 163s? seems like one shot always always lights the plane. 163 is too easy in the hands of skilled pilot? B24 burns, but 163 never accidentally explodes or burns with 12-18 .x50 cal firing at it?
2. Why only one gunner 1 plane, is it not possible have 2 drones, 2 gunners? Better still, could joiners be given a menu like field gun menu like e.g. "this position is taken" but belly gun is free. Have as many gunners as there are positions in the aircraft.
3. Single .50 cal in H2S belly option for lancs with 4 x 303 tail, as a perk plane perhaps.
4. B24D as a high eny obj plane
5. Catalina / Italian Bomber / Wellington / B25J/ Beaufighter / Lockheed Hudson / JU52 with goon option
6. 8k cookie, 50lb bombs for lancs. 4k cookie and 50lb bombs, some burning and obscurity over other factory targets.
7. B24 too easy to reach past 29k... should be some risk attached of engine trouble or pressurization issues, like a 163 it's la creme de la creme of experimental late war machines and requires some basic flying skill/achievement in perks to obtain. Same with 163, it's modelled on the design, which is theoretically safe to fly and functions every time, which wasn't the case with both experimental aircraft. I'd have more risk attached to using 29s and 163s.
8. RE: Pilot Wounded. This sucks a lot when you are over strats. Have option on planes with co-pilot seats for gunners to be able to fly, IF the pilot is wounded. If ever Catalina, Sunderland and other flying boats appear, have option for gunner to make tea/med for pilot wounded and have the med option in lancs or other heavy bombers. The med option is limited, like an adrenalin shot to wake the pilot up and gives 5 minutes, for a landing or bombing or whatever is needed, after which pilot dies if not ditched/landed. The med option could be operated by player or gunner. This could be implemented now, having gunners fly from gunner positions using rudder and waking up the pilot for landing.
-
I agree with a few of your points/wishes. In the case of the B24's they do seem to too easily flame up. But what do we have to measure it against?
I'd like to see the ability to have multiple gunners on a single plane as well, it isn't a priority for me as I do most of my own defensive gunning anyways.
The vs. 163 issue is sort of a moot point, land a few hits to the 163's mid section and "puuf".
I'd REALLY like to see the B24D version in AH. I think there is enough difference between the EW and LW versions to warrant 2 different models. Ditto for the B17. :aok
The B24 is a pig when loaded down with ords. Once it gets to its "prime alt" at 25,000 ft, just plan on using the B24 there until the ords are dropped. It only carries so much fuel. It isnt a B29. ;)
Pilot wounds in a US heavy bombers: I think PW's could be addressed. There is a reason there were 2 pilots. :aok
-
Which bombers in AH had a copilot? B-17G, B-24J, B-25s, B-26B, B-29A, G4M1 and Ki-67 I know did. Did the Ju88 or He111? On the Lancaster the flight engineer had flight training to act as a backup. The Boston Mk III and Mosquito both lack copilots as do the B5N2 and TBM-3.
-
Taking in the laundry list from the OP, it's a bomber whines. However, there are some points to address:
B-24s had notoriously weak wings. They flexed and flopped in reality (the so-called "Davis Wing" if I recall?) but this also meant they were more flexible and definitely not as strong as their B-17 comrades.
B-24s could NOT fly at the alts they fly in here. They could barely fly level at 28-29K. They more often were capped at 25-26K, and often flew much lower (20K and below). They had to break up formations or run the risk of just sliding sideways into their wingmates and taking out 2-3 others. It was a common enough sight to see one struggle up there and then just snap-roll inverted onto its back. One bomber pilot made specific mention of this. Often such violent movements would cause the loss of that plane, as well.
As for your 8x50cals should kill a 163? Only if 8x50cal hit it. Often you are not. Often you ping it once. I've personally seen many 163s insta-popped in the MA. The key is to actually hit them.
B-24D would be worth about the same value as a B-24J in this game. The main difference was the nose gun defenses. This was only an issue in WW2, where the planes cruised at max cruise even during combat. This allowed enemy fighters to overtake, turn around, and HO repeatedly during a single engagement in short periods of time. In THIS game all you get is full throttle nonsense and tail-chases. You'll almost never overtake B-24s and HO them more than once in here. So the value of those nose guns is almost nil comparing the D and J variants. You want to farm perks with a high OBJ rated bomber? Fly a Junkers. Or a G4M3. Or a Mitchell (one of my favorites).
Hitech said they will not most likely never add any ord larger than the 4k cookie. It would be too easy to abuse in-game and destabilize anything from GV bombing to airfield attacking.
As for your experimental comments: the 163 was not experimental. It was a combat-flown production craft. It wasn't conventional and didn't see as much combat as prop planes, but they are very much modeled on actual service. B-29s were not experimental either.
Pilot wounds? Deal with it. It's part of the damage model. Don't get shot and you won't get pilot wounds. You're lucky you weren't pilot killed or blown up out-right. Enjoy the second chance you got (blackouts and all) while it lasts, because otherwise without that pilot wound you'd be back in the tower.
-
you can have two gunners: yourself and another who joins you.
as for having more than 1 person join you, it has been discussed to death. we have a choice: either have as many gunners as we have gunning positions or having slaved guns.
semp
-
you can have two gunners: yourself and another who joins you.
as for having more than 1 person join you, it has been discussed to death. we have a choice: either have as many gunners as we have gunning positions or having slaved guns.
semp
Wasn't it a choice between having several gunners or having formations? :headscratch:
-
Wasn't it a choice between having several gunners or having formations? :headscratch:
formations with slaved guns.
semp
-
formations with slaved guns.
semp
Ah. I did not know about that bit.
-
you can have two gunners: yourself and another who joins you.
as for having more than 1 person join you, it has been discussed to death. we have a choice: either have as many gunners as we have gunning positions or having slaved guns.
semp
I can see see it now. bunch of drunk old fatrs fill an entire b17. kill them oh the whines :rofl
-
There is only one change for bombers I would wish for. I would like a choice to be available before takeoff of AI's OR gunners. I do not know if this is possible. You choose to either have 2 AI's roll with you, or fill you buff with other players in every gun position historically available. If you choose the AI then fine, you can have 3 chances and slaved guns. I would want the player choosing the single buff with gunners to be able to accept players to gun for him in-flight. That way players would not have to be sitting their through the entire climbout if they did not want to. I would also like for each of the manned positions to be killable, kill the gunner and get a kill credit for a gunner, not an aircraft kill credit and no perks for killing a gunner. I would like for the gunner that did the most damage to me to be credited with the kill when it occurs, and the bomber pilot.
I love hunting buffs. I absolutely love the excitement of making a pass knowing it is 999000. It is the chalenge that makes the result, whatever it may turn out to be the reward. I would dearly love attacking a B17, or B24 or whatever, knowing that every position is manned by another player.
-
I think 24s had a fuel line that ran down their side and the LW pilots would aim for. If Im not mistaken both the wing root and fuel line could be hit in one pass. The LW pilots far preffered to attacks B-24s then B-17s.
-
Pilot wound is fine. It's not a big cockpit; odds are very good if you shot the pilot the co-pilot is hit too. Also the b24 is easier to down than a 17. This is why it flames up a little faster. For the 163 it's got 2 30mms it can kill anything fast and if it has no fuel u pretty much need to kill the pilot to bring it down.
-
163 is too easy in the hands of skilled pilot? B24 burns, but 163 never accidentally explodes or burns with 12-18 .x50 cal firing at it?
The 163 actually is exploding very quickly if hit, it can't take anywhere as much damage as other fighters before you are back in the tower. There are no oil or fuel leaks or engine stoppages... you simply blow up.
With it's speed and small size it's just a very difficult target to hit in the first place.
By the way, got three Komet's at no loss in two sorties two days ago :devil
-
B-24s had notoriously weak wings. They flexed and flopped in reality (the so-called "Davis Wing" if I recall?) but this also meant they were more flexible and definitely not as strong as their B-17 comrades.
Where have you gotten the idea the B-24 wing "flexed and flopped"? I've crawled around inside the wings on both the B-17 and B-24, I agree that the B-17 wing is probably stronger due to it's truss type construction (you could probably use one as a bridge :devil) but have no reason to think the B-24 was "weak". As for the flexing, in all the time I flew the airplanes I never saw the wing flex (like you do with modern jets) and down in the southeast US one dark and stormy day we certainly encountered turbulence that would have flexed the wing. Nor did we ever notice wrinkles in the wing skin, something you will see if a wing is flexing. (Ever notice the wrinkles on a B-52 fuselage ahead of the wing?)
It was a common enough sight to see one struggle up there and then just snap-roll inverted onto its back. One bomber pilot made specific mention of this. Often such violent movements would cause the loss of that plane, as well.
One guy mentions this and that makes it a common occurrence? I talked to a lot of B-24 guys and they talked about it's heavy controls, inability to get as high as the B-17, that is was a pain to taxi, had a weak nosewheel, fuel leaks and fires, would easily lose hydraulic system with damage but I don't remember them saying anything about snap rolling. From my experience the biggest issue flying formation is that the airplane doesn't trim well in pitch and it is very easy to bleed off 5-10 mph by making sloppy pitch inputs so you have to be pretty aggressive to maintain a close formation --- enough so that it would be tiring on a several our flight to Berlin. As for the snap-roll, on the B-17 if you use aileron to pick a wing up at the stall you'll be upside down before you can say Focke Wulf so might not be a "B-24" issue at all.
-
From pilot stories noting it in turbulence. Also a few notes from a recollection from ferry flights (rough weather sometimes).
I don't mean to suggest it flapped like a bird's wing, but it moved, undulated, and scared more than a few folks that were onboard. One navigator said he had to force himself to NOT watch it, because if he did he would start asking questions about how it keep them in the air like that, and he didn't want to go there. He was more than glad to land safely after that one.
P.S. The performance at 30K is noted in a couple of books from pilots that flew them in formation. It wasn't just trim. The plane would require full concentration just to stay level. It would swerve and the nose would oscillate left and right, and the tail would twist slightly, and the wings would move. The whole plane was alive, and it was impossible to keep fine control of it. It wasn't just trying to lift an aileron during stall. The whole plane flexed.
Even when they tried putting a B-17 nose on one B-24, it worsened this flexing, if I recall, making it harder to control even at lower alts.
-
+1. I like the bomber ideas being tossed around. It seems that every time someone posts a "wish" in the wish list area they are immediately attacked and told to stop whining.
I think some bomber tweaks would be great for the game. Crew management, and some damage control/ more extensive modeling would get me into bombers more. It would be a ton of fun flying to a target having some wounded crew moving them around, putting out engine fires, transferring fuel, overheated engines, losing engines and the list can go on.
It seems you either lose an aileron, or the entire wing falls a
Off. Nothing in the middle. Some consideration on the subject isn't a bad thing IMO.
-
From pilot stories noting it in turbulence. Also a few notes from a recollection from ferry flights (rough weather sometimes).
I don't mean to suggest it flapped like a bird's wing, but it moved, undulated, and scared more than a few folks that were onboard. One navigator said he had to force himself to NOT watch it, because if he did he would start asking questions about how it keep them in the air like that, and he didn't want to go there. He was more than glad to land safely after that one.
P.S. The performance at 30K is noted in a couple of books from pilots that flew them in formation. It wasn't just trim. The plane would require full concentration just to stay level. It would swerve and the nose would oscillate left and right, and the tail would twist slightly, and the wings would move. The whole plane was alive, and it was impossible to keep fine control of it. It wasn't just trying to lift an aileron during stall. The whole plane flexed.
Even when they tried putting a B-17 nose on one B-24, it worsened this flexing, if I recall, making it harder to control even at lower alts.
:airplane: Columbo reply has it right. I did not fly either one, but had a lot of hangar talk with guys who did fly them both. didn't hear any of those type stories. The B-24, Davis wing, is a Laminar flow type wing and can't, because of design, flex much or would defeat the purpose of the Laminar flow design. The B-17 has a large vertical stabilizer and rudder for one a purpose and that is slow flight control. The 17 would, or so I have been told would roll off on a wing, one way or the other during takeoff and departure stall practice and approach to landing stalls. In the B-29 and B-26, you were taught real quick that if the left wing broke first, low, then you press right rudder as well as aileron control input to return to wings level condition. If you are uncoordinated in your control response, you could roll the aircraft inverted real quick. Best coordinated control practice is with aircraft in landing config, 5 knots above stall, then roll 30 degrees right and left. Do it wrong and you are going to stall. Any skidding because of improper use of rudder will decay the airspeed in the blink of a eye and there you go.
Most of the aircraft in the WW2 era did not have flexible wing design, except the B-29! We had some flex in turbulence, but not enough to be of a concern for flight safety. All the aircraft of today have a "flex" design in the wing for a purpose. The new Boeing 787's wingtips move up and down 72 feet, 36 up or down. (I think that is the right amount of flex)
-
Columbo..........you still have that video of you piloting the Collings B24 I saw about six years ago at IEN?
Is it on youtube?
-
Columbo..........you still have that video of you piloting the Collings B24 I saw about six years ago at IEN?
Is it on youtube?
It might be here. (http://www.dalefalk.com/Movies)
-
Odd Krusty. Just haven't seen or heard of any of that...but I certainly haven't heard everything about the B-24. :D
Upon reflection there is a bit of noticeable wing flex. On the ground from the pilots seats you can't see the wingtips (one reason you see the engineer sticking outa the top hatch when taxiing) but once in flight you can see them if you stretch a bit.
-
Im surprised to be told I'm "whining" by someone who doesn't seem to have properly read my post.
1. Thanks for the nice long lecture about B24s but you actually said nothing at all about their flammability in the game.
2. I can't agree with what is being said about B24D and J being similar. On PB missions I am shooting down bombers and fighters on a daily basis with my nose guns on 17s and 24s, on PB missions that is. Also 262s and other planes are easier dealt with by nose gun. I wouldn't have a chance to do that with a single .50 cal, B24D would make a big difference in PB missions and it would be much much harder to destroy bombers. People saw me yesterday dogfight a spitfire and kill it entire with top and nose guns, my rear gun never got used, I'm doing this all the time on PB missions. Think more clearly and you will see many reasons why B24D and B24J would get played differently. But you are incorrect totally to say that nose gun is not crucial or important, I use it ALL the time.
3. It's a good point by SmokinLoon about B-17E and B-17D, again for the same reasons.
4. Again I don't know where you get your facts from, but the me163 was responsible for either 9, 10 or 16 victories total. The Japanese 163 is not available in the game, but some were built, whether they flew I don't know, because a vital part, some pump, was sunk in a u-boat.
I appreciate the feedback. I have shot 163s down, but my point is about the fact that B24s light up easily. As far as the wing-flex is concerned, I don't have a problem with it, if you roll too hard or pull up too hard, yes you lose your wings, fair enough. The issue is that the me163 is barely in the scope of WW2, it is highly exotic, was responsible for less than 20 kills and in the case of the B24J, while obviously I am wrong, I was feeling it was very unbalanced.
5. "Deal with it"? The lanc does have a flight engineer fold-out seat, so in fact all heavies did have two crew positions in the cockpit. It's perfectly reasonable for players to want the co-pilot or medic option in a heavy bomber, just as a fighter pilot should want speed or turn from his fighter. Sunderlands had a kind of kitchen with boiling water, all I am saying is that there is scope to increase the immersion and interactivity for players when flying bombers and to balance things a little. Heavy bombers didn't fly to Berlin with one pilot, deal with that, I'm just asking for something that is more realistic, more fun, more challenging. SWOTL is even older than AH, but there seemed to be more nursing of engines and radiator management. There could be more challenges once wounded, like "does my gunner take over, or shall I med the pilot 4 mins out from the rwy" there should be consequences of each decision. Also as someone mentioned, engines could get more complex like SWOTL, once damaged.
Jed's ideas are fantastic, didn't cross my mind, but moving and replacing wounded gunners would be fantastic.
-
No9999squadron, the idea of having a copilot or gunner or "medic" take over goes against the long established tradition of 1 life per airplane. in a fighter you only get 1 chance, with a bomber you get 3. asking for the copilot "to take over" kindda goes against this tradition.
but to be fair and if you want to compare to what happened in ww2. the bomber crews bailed out a lot faster and with less damage than what we do in this game. and the reason is because we have nothing to lose.
I am pretty sure most of the pilots bailed out if you lost 1/2 a wing, instead of trying to bring it back to base like it happens here in the game. that is just an example, we play a game here and we try to stop the other guy from getting a kill while in ww2 if you took off 1/2 a wing that counted as a kill.
semp
-
4. Again I don't know where you get your facts from, but the me163 was responsible for either 9, 10 or 16 victories total. The Japanese 163 is not available in the game, but some were built, whether they flew I don't know, because a vital part, some pump, was sunk in a u-boat.
In Aces high all vehicles come in perfect condition. There are no malfunctions or hazards real life deals with. Real life the Me-163 has two of the most volatile fuels ever put together, if either of the fuel VAPORS come into contact, it would case Me-163s to explode on the runway. The Fuel trucks were stationed at either end of the runway, one truck would fill one fuel tank, drive away - then the other truck would come to fuel. Some 163s had NO Fuel and just sat on the runway and exploded just because the vapors mixed.
However in Aces High - how would you feel if you were in an Me-163 on the runway waiting to take off, after you put your fresh 50 perks up to fly it - and it exploded on a runway? Not very fun is it? There is a reason the Me-163 is only available at ONE airfield per country (nearest to the HQ).
Don't fly near the HQ, and you generally won't meet the BEST fighter in Aces high (long as its flown right). If HQ was dropped every hour how you feel about having no radar all day long? It unbalances the game again..
The system is in place and works fine, I have no problem with 163s in game, if I want HQ dropped I take a massive mission to do it, and just hope I might get one of the little wings.
-
Someone has chosen to accuse a new player of "whining" and whining about 163s. This is cowturd. What I actually said was
B24s burned that much against 163s?
My issue was the flammability of B24s. I realize now that it's not the rocket motor burning the plane or some inbalance and that simply I had a run of bad luck and was fighting the top ranking player.
It's an old game, some players are very knowledgeable and skilled and us beginners are not. If when we open our mouths, simply to ask a question, we are attacked for "whining", what will happen is that beginners won't play this game and the game will become more and more stale and exclusive to newcomers. It's hard enough fighting the top ranking player in 163s, when I've been playing only a few weeks and I came here to question the balance of 24 v163 and to make some suggestions about making bombers more fun, having more players on board and more options for players, that is all, how that could warrant such a reaction as it did, reminds me of how players totally screwed up Deus Ex Multiplayer for beginners, that game is now totally dead. With player numbers dwindling slowly, you can't afford to talk to beginners like that for simply asking questions or having an opinion. The lecture on B24s was very patronizing, since you didn't mention any of the realities of a 163, including the liability to explode, so your argument was not only factually incorrect, it was slightly abusive and definitely misleading, and in fact you still didn't give an opinion on whether B24s burned that much or not. I'm not whining, I'm simply pointing out that B24s didn't catch fire as much as they seem to do in Aces High, that's my opinion. You weren't having a discussion, but just a rant at a new player.
I also stand by my words and I think there is an option for the devs to increase the options to bomber pilots.
I don't see what is so bad about suggesting 163s should explode sometimes or 24s should burn less. In SWOTL, for example, a damaged radiator mean't you had option to continue full throttle and kill the engine, or reduce rpm/throttle and nurse the engine home. That's all I was doing, was suggesting that there could be more damage control options for players and while I can see there is no support at all for it, I was suggesting that 163s should explode. My bad for trying to make it more like WW2.
As a new player, I've been firmly put in my place Krusty, I won't dare to disturb your equilibrium again.
-
Easy there. This isn't the rough stuff. This, comparatively, is actually rather civil. :cool:
-
If that is being civil to beginners, then thanks, but no thanks. As I said, I won't bother making any suggestion again. I was under the impression this is the one section where people can suggest or question aspects of AH.
-
Ok then.
-
If HTC check the logs, they will see that 99% of the time Snailman lights my B24s, but roughly 1% of the time, he loses a wing, I've never actually seen a 163 explode the way you describe. I appreciate people being "civil", but I don't think I'm so out of order to suggest there is something wrong with the fact that a 163 never burns, even when I hit it with a lot of .50 cal and B24 always does. Obviously my experience so far is not the norm. It seems like some inbalance going on if the B24 is the one that is always burning when hit. I've seen 163 lose a wing after two pilots pelted it. So how was that balanced or like WW2, I don't think it was, just saying, it should take very little to burn a 163. Perhaps it does, but I haven't seen it personally in the game. Now that you've educated me, I won't ask for that kind of realism again, but I personally would love to see B29s failing to make alt, 163s exploding on a bumpy take-off and other stuff. More challenges. I can appreciate why the devs are never going to do that though, but I don't think mentioning pilot wounded on long distance missions warranted the response it got either, I'm just throwing ideas around, what this section is for isn't it? There are lots of things that could be done to increase damage control options/challenges and gunnery inside bombers. And having lots of gunners I think you will find, actually will make it a lot harder, because already 2 gunners waste a lot of ammo.
-
What you might not consider is that this is also an open forum for debating said wishes.
Other players will discuss their practicalities and impracticalities. Players who've seen these
discussions before, and have seen prior responses from Hitech, Pyro or Skuzzy will share
their viewpoints with you. What you 'want' may not actually be good for the game or the
community (or it may just be their honest opinion that it wouldn't be). And no, such wishes
are not limited to new players. In the end, it's up to HTC to weigh the merits of such wishes.
Til then you may get opinions from other players about how they value your suggestion(s)
and it won't always be done in a gentle manner.
I understand that Krusty hurt your feelings. I'm sorry your feelings got hurt. But if it's
a gentle touch in the midst of disagreeing with you that you're asking for then you're a
appearing somewhat desperate for sympathy. While I understand your exuberance I suggest
more patience and humility and less sensitivity.
-
I think the 163 has one reason to have a place in this game, and that is to make attacking the HQ (and strats on certain maps) to be more difficult. Nothing could effectively stop a 30k b17 group from flying over and flatten the strats. Even if the losses would be serious, the caused damage would really hurt the other country. Just like in the old MoM missions.
-
I don't think anyone has said it, but it is 100% historically correct for B-24s to burn readily when hit at the wing root. That's just a fact you have to live with.
-
One tweak I would request to make the bomber aspect fun is to allow a full crew of gunners onto a single bomber or even allow triple the amount of people allow to gun on set of bombers. It was a fun aspect in Air Warrior and I`m sure it would be a hit again.
:salute
27th
-
The Boston Mk III and Mosquito both lack copilots as do the B5N2 and TBM-3.
Boston did have a co pilot & he sat here.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/a20cgunposition.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/a20cgunposition.jpg.html)
Second set of flight controls that could be operated from the gunners seat.
-
1. B24s burned that much against 163s? seems like one shot always always lights the plane. 163 is too easy in the hands of skilled pilot? B24 burns, but 163 never accidentally explodes or burns with 12-18 .x50 cal firing at it?
The B-24 Did have a REALLY BAD reputation for it's wings snapping and fuel lines catching fire. I mean yeah, 1 20mil shell shouldn't exactly do the trick, but it was a real problem that the USAAC had to face, and that's why the B-17 saw more production than the B-24.
-
The B-24 Did have a REALLY BAD reputation for it's wings snapping and fuel lines catching fire. I mean yeah, 1 20mil shell shouldn't exactly do the trick, but it was a real problem that the USAAC had to face, and that's why the B-17 saw more production than the B-24.
The 12,000 B-17s is more than the 18,000 B-24s? :P
-
My issue was the flammability of B24s.
In real life the B-24 had a tendency to catch on fire due to the placement of the fuel tanks in the upper fuselage.
ack-ack
-
One tweak I would request to make the bomber aspect fun is to allow a full crew of gunners onto a single bomber or even allow triple the amount of people allow to gun on set of bombers. It was a fun aspect in Air Warrior and I`m sure it would be a hit again.
:salute
27th
Won't happen. It was a choice, either gun ships (multiple gunners) OR formations. People wanted to have more bombs per flight than gunners.
-
Won't happen. It was a choice, either gun ships (multiple gunners) OR formations. People wanted to have more bombs per flight than gunners.
That isn't what the choice was. It was slaved guns or multiple gunners. This was the choice that HTC made back before formations existed. The choice for slaved guns was made due to the extremely low percentage of sorties that had multiple gunners.
-
Im surprised to be told I'm "whining" by someone who doesn't seem to have properly read my post.
I am not surprised at all since you are not asking anyone for help or information about the game, but instead are making wishes for the game to be changed to how you think it should be without m/any referenced facts supporting your wishes. Honestly, this is a very much tamer BBS in the last few years than I remember. I might even be a little proud of these guys, as it used to be much worse. Even for the one whine comment you received, you had more say something positive about your post than called you a whiner. Just my thoughts; but, yeah, err... no, I do not care for your wish proposals either mostly for what has already been pointed out.
Welcome to the game, grow a thick skin or chose your posts carefully, thin skin gets hurted a lot in here and in game.
:salute
-
Where have you gotten the idea the B-24 wing "flexed and flopped"? I've crawled around inside the wings on both the B-17 and B-24, I agree that the B-17 wing is probably stronger due to it's truss type construction (you could probably use one as a bridge :devil) but have no reason to think the B-24 was "weak". As for the flexing, in all the time I flew the airplanes I never saw the wing flex (like you do with modern jets) and down in the southeast US one dark and stormy day we certainly encountered turbulence that would have flexed the wing. Nor did we ever notice wrinkles in the wing skin, something you will see if a wing is flexing. (Ever notice the wrinkles on a B-52 fuselage ahead of the wing?)
One guy mentions this and that makes it a common occurrence? I talked to a lot of B-24 guys and they talked about it's heavy controls, inability to get as high as the B-17, that is was a pain to taxi, had a weak nosewheel, fuel leaks and fires, would easily lose hydraulic system with damage but I don't remember them saying anything about snap rolling. From my experience the biggest issue flying formation is that the airplane doesn't trim well in pitch and it is very easy to bleed off 5-10 mph by making sloppy pitch inputs so you have to be pretty aggressive to maintain a close formation --- enough so that it would be tiring on a several our flight to Berlin. As for the snap-roll, on the B-17 if you use aileron to pick a wing up at the stall you'll be upside down before you can say Focke Wulf so might not be a "B-24" issue at all.
:airplane: All the old guys in the 50's that I knew which flew the 24's and 17's, all pretty much summed it up by what you just posted! :salute
-
In real life the B-24 had a tendency to catch on fire due to the placement of the fuel tanks in the upper fuselage.
ack-ack
Fuel tanks on the B-24 are in the wings, there is no fuel tank in the fuselage (with the possible exception of a bombbay ferry tank). The fire issue was a fuel manifold in the fuselage located forward of the waist, above the bombbay--just forward of the trailing edge of the wing. The fuel lines/connections leaked. The airplane always had fuel fumes in it...it was policy to fly with the bomb bay doors cracked to help ventilate.
-
The B-24 Did have a REALLY BAD reputation for it's wings snapping and fuel lines catching fire
Bad rep with who? flight simmers who have never flown? In talking to guys that flew the airplane to war the big thing they talked about was fire, never heard them say anything about losing a wing....and I was paying attention since I was flying the same airplane everyday.
As for B-17 vs B-24.....you put a bunch of vets in a room and the B-24 guys will claim it was the best, -17 guys will say ditto about the B-17. Of course these days we're only talking to the survivors. :devil
-
Fuel tanks on the B-24 are in the wings, there is no fuel tank in the fuselage (with the possible exception of a bombbay ferry tank). The fire issue was a fuel manifold in the fuselage located forward of the waist, above the bombbay--just forward of the trailing edge of the wing. The fuel lines/connections leaked. The airplane always had fuel fumes in it...it was policy to fly with the bomb bay doors cracked to help ventilate.
Were the crews all under 23 or so? I get freaked out when my father in law fills his aged gas cans and carries them around in the back of his scion (30 gallons or so.) Gasoline terrifies me but I remember draining the tank of my step van into a sheet rock bucket when I was younger and more clever.
-
Were the crews all under 23 or so? I get freaked out when my father in law fills his aged gas cans and carries them around in the back of his scion (30 gallons or so.) Gasoline terrifies me but I remember draining the tank of my step van into a sheet rock bucket when I was younger and more clever.
:airplane: In talking with people who flew in the big war, most gunners on bombers were in the 19 to 22 year age group, while most bomber pilots were between 21 and 25, with the exception of the squadron and wing officers, but even those guys were young, and many when on to be generals by age 40, (Curtis Lemay). They came from all walks of life in America and they all had one thing in common, they wanted to help win the war! The quickest way to the air war was to vol. to be a gunner! Count the number of gunners needed on a 17, 24 and you see real quick the military problem of filling those positions. Then you couple that with gunners getting wounded, killed or captured after bailing out, gunners were in short supply until about mid 1943.
During the war years when building large bombers, engineering had not learned the lesson of "flex" joints in fuel lines and therein lays some of the problem with the 24. Any large aircraft is going to flex a certain amount, especially where the wings and fuseledge are joined! They finally started running crossover fuel lines in the wing "box", the center section where the main spar of the wing cross from one side of the aircraft to the other and has less flex than other parts of the wing area and then a lot of those fuel problems went away.
-
The 12,000 B-17s is more than the 18,000 B-24s? :P
I guess I am wrong, according to Boeing, The B-17 was produced a total of 12,731 times, where as the B-24 was produced 18,482 times. My bad.
-
Bad rep with who? flight simmers who have never flown? In talking to guys that flew the airplane to war the big thing they talked about was fire, never heard them say anything about losing a wing....and I was paying attention since I was flying the same airplane everyday.
As for B-17 vs B-24.....you put a bunch of vets in a room and the B-24 guys will claim it was the best, -17 guys will say ditto about the B-17. Of course these days we're only talking to the survivors. :devil
Did the Davis wing make ditches and belly landings dangerous due to it's high fuselage-mounting?
ack-ack
-
Did the Davis wing make ditches and belly landings dangerous due to it's high fuselage-mounting?
ack-ack
While the B-24 was not known for doing well when ditching or landing gear up it wasn't because of the airfoil or wing position.
Upon contact with the water the bombay doors would fail and the bulkhead at the rear of the bombbay would take the impact usually resulting in the tail of the airplane coming off which meant it quickly sank. The "fix" was a ditching kit consisting of some support pieces that could be put in place to reinforce the bombbay door. No pressure getting that installed in time. :devil
When belly landing the nose had a tendency to tuck under if rough terrain was encountered.