Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: RODBUSTR on February 06, 2018, 11:08:52 AM

Title: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: RODBUSTR on February 06, 2018, 11:08:52 AM
     Service ceiling of 35k or above with a bomb load and ammunition, pretty far fetched.   U.S.A.A.F. studies proved that was imposable. Max alt with combat load of about 58,000 pounds was  around 25,000 feet.  alt of 36,500 feet required a take off weight of 40,000 pounds.  Real B17s or any bombers could not bomb  any higher with any degree of accuracy.  That means getting a bomb within 1000 feet of target. 
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: BowHTR on February 06, 2018, 11:20:08 AM
Where's the data?
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: colmbo on February 06, 2018, 02:48:51 PM
A gent I know who flew 32 missions in B-17s flew one mission at 32,000.  He was 351st BG, 8th AF out of England.  He did say that was the only time they went that high due to poor bombing results.
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: save on February 07, 2018, 03:38:12 AM
I remember Lusche was close to compression in his Me163 trying to follow a diving formation of B17s  :D
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: Lusche on February 07, 2018, 03:44:38 AM
I remember Lusche was close to compression in his Me163 trying to follow a diving formation of B17s  :D

I could not keep up with them  :rofl

But then, the Me 163 is pretty much overmodeled itself...
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: Zimme83 on February 07, 2018, 06:34:49 AM
it is hard to fly in formation at 35k and its also very dangerous without pressurized cabin so there is few good reasons to go up there in a real B-17.

As for accuracy there are some major differences aside from the bomb sight between AH and irl, real life crew did not have their exact altitude or speed and not the wind either. We on the other hand flies in a standard atmosphere where our instruments are thus showing our real altitude and airspeed, so even without an auto bomb sight all you need is one of these and some practice and the bombs will be spot on:
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pilotshop.co.nz%2Fassets%2FthumbL%2FJS514101.jpg&f=1)
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: Mister Fork on February 07, 2018, 11:11:30 AM
     Service ceiling of 35k or above with a bomb load and ammunition, pretty far fetched.   U.S.A.A.F. studies proved that was imposable. Max alt with combat load of about 58,000 pounds was  around 25,000 feet.  alt of 36,500 feet required a take off weight of 40,000 pounds.  Real B17s or any bombers could not bomb  any higher with any degree of accuracy.  That means getting a bomb within 1000 feet of target. 

So...in order to substantiate your claim, what sources can you reference with your statement?  Not trying to be a arse, just that if you make a bold claim, you should have some data to back that up.  We know operationally, most B-17 runs were anywhere from 10-20k.1 The most effective yet dangerous altitude was 10k.

1. Swanborough, Gordon and Peter M. Bowers. United States Navy Aircraft since 1911. London: Putnam, Second edition, 1976. ISBN 0-370-10054-9. P-74.
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: Lusche on February 07, 2018, 11:31:16 AM
.  We know operationally, most B-17 runs were anywhere from 10-20k.

I have a hard time to believe that, at least for the ETO. Sounds more like typical RAF night attack altitudes.
Also, German fighters would not have had the issue of engine performance difficulties at that altitude they did suffer from when fighting the 8th AF.
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: Lusche on February 07, 2018, 11:46:17 AM
Some data I found for the 8th AF:

(https://i.imgur.com/qf9UasD.png)

Cited as per
Carroll, James J,
PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF BOMBER CREWS IN THE
EIGHTH AIR FORCE DURING WWII
1997
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: Mister Fork on February 07, 2018, 03:37:23 PM
Some data I found for the 8th AF:

Cited as per
Carroll, James J,
PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF BOMBER CREWS IN THE
EIGHTH AIR FORCE DURING WWII
1997
Just because for a while the 8th went high after losing hundreds of crews and dozens and dozens of B-17s mid-war (to make it harder to intercept formations and avoid flak) that they stayed high for the duration of the war.  Out west, the 17's flew low. 10k was average for ship convoy intercept and sometimes lower. In this article written by John Correll in October 2008, "Daylight Precision Bombing" (PDF). Airforce Magazine: 60–64 - check page 63-64 here (http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2008/October%202008/1008daylight.pdf) -

Postwar analysis found that accuracy had been about the same in Europe and Asia for day visual and radar precision bombing. Eighth Air Force in Great Britain put 31.8 percent of its bombs within 1,000 feet of the aim point from an average altitude of 21,000 feet.

So the 8th did go high mid war, but they weren't very accurate missions and eventually went lower during the last year of conflict as the Luftwaffe lost air superiority - around late 1943/early 44. Then they went low - and lower depending on how accurate they needed the missions to be.

Other airwing groups and countries used varying altitudes for the B-17 - and most were not above 21k.
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: icepac on February 07, 2018, 04:25:02 PM
The turbocharged B17s made plenty of horsepower at 30k unlike most other bombers.
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: Mister Fork on February 07, 2018, 05:15:35 PM
The turbocharged B17s made plenty of horsepower at 30k unlike most other bombers.
...and the B-24 too...same power plant.

Essentially, any altitude above 5000ft is where these turbo's worked well.  I live in a place that is at 3500ft...I enjoy having a turbo Subaru Forester in this city. :x
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: colmbo on February 07, 2018, 11:16:43 PM
...and the B-24 too...same power plant.



Nope.  Lib had the PW 1830, Forts the Wright 1820.  They did produce the same 1200hp.
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: Mister Fork on February 08, 2018, 09:43:20 AM
Nope.  Lib had the PW 1830, Forts the Wright 1820.  They did produce the same 1200hp.
ahh, that's how I got my lions crossed.
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: RODBUSTR on February 10, 2018, 02:33:04 AM
 You can find the data from naca archives and from usaaf archives, but common sense.   If a b17 could have carried bombs to an alt of 36000 feet and dropped them accurately.......They would have been doing It.
Title: Re: A more accurately modeled B17. and other buffs
Post by: RODBUSTR on February 10, 2018, 02:36:34 AM
 all b17s were turbo charged.