Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Citabria on April 17, 2002, 02:26:14 PM
-
how much in bribes will this take to get added? :)
-
AirScrew jumps on the B24 bandwagon, lets go guys.
*mutters under his breath, B25, A26, P61*
Yea, we need the B24
-
b25 would be better. wait till buff model is revamped then b24 would be great. no new 4 eng waste of times until then
-
I'd rather have them work on the b29 as a small perk bomber.
-
I second JPEG's request.
I actually have a client who was a B-24 Libertaor Pilot in Europe during WWII
When I found this out, I immediately took him to lunch to pick his brain.
He said none of his gunners ever got a kill, and the worst part of flying a mission was always the Flak.
My Grand-Father-in-law was also a B-24 pilot, but he passed away years ago so I never found out much about him.
-
I'm thinkin' the Mitchell would be nice...
-
My stepdad was a ball turret gunner in Liberators. He said the scariest part of the trip was the low-level strafing runs jumping the hedgerows of Europe. Seems to me that would be one heckuva adrenaline rush!
-
No, we don't need B-24 right now.
-
You want a B-24? Jump into the B-17 and imagine your in a B-24. You want a B-25? Jump into a B-26 and only use 75% throttle. Who else need help with an I wanna?!
:p
-
How would you suggest I imagine a B-29? :)
-
HT,
I'll buy you 2 bottles of you're favorite Scotch and 2 bottles of what Pyro likes for a b25H w/ that lovely 75mm gun in the nose :)
Im deadly serious too!
-
Well, this is a little more tricky but seeing as we only have 1 aircraft with 4 engines... take the B-17 up to 30k+ and on your way up have someone shoot off one of your ailerons. Now fly around in circles over an enemy base and listen to all the whines. You could even enhance your fantasy by over laying a cut out of the B-29 greenhouse on your puter screen!
-
lol
-
You gotta bribe the whole office at once.
I'd LOVE a B24, but realistically it's a fragile B17 that flies lower, is harder to control, and doesn't carry as much ordinance. We already have a fragile, lower bomber that carries more.
B29 would make a better addition as a medium-high perk bomber.
Dive bombers would make an even better addition. Stuka would be the most logical, despite my partiality to American aircraft.
With the B26 and the Boston I'm not sure how many more mediums would be nessisary. Given the short duration of night (and the icons) a night fighter wouldn't have all that much utility, either (sorry, Rip :) ).
For what it's worth (absolutly nothing) I think the two A/C I'd like to see added the most would be the perked B29 and a P40 or two. :cool:
-
Yes, a B-24 would be great.
I had a Drafting teacher in high school who flew them over Germany. If we could get him talking about it, he would forget to give us homework! :)
He told us one story of how they came back damaged and were going to have to belly land. Standard operating procedure is that you jettison the belly ball turret. Apparently the gunner was having trouble getting it to release, so he tried stomping on it.
You can guess the rest :(
ps. I would love to do a Ploesti scenario if we had the Liberator.
-
Some incorrect information: The B24 didnt have a ball turret and it carried almost twice the ordinance of a B17.
-
B24 used the Sperry retractable ball turret.
Max bomb load of the B24D was 5,400 lbs, B24G was 4,500 pounds. The most common bomb load was 10 500s or 5 1000s, typically flying from 18k to 28k in ETO, lower in the PTO.
B17E carried 4,000 pounds of bombs while the B17G carried 12,800 pounds. Service ceiling was 35,000 feet.
I've seen a _lot_ of conflicting performance information for the B17/B24. Most of what I "know" my dad told me, the rest I looked up on the net and in various books. The B24 had that high Davis wing, which made it more susceptable to breaking during hard landings and harder to control. The Emerson nose turret adversly affected it's handling.
If you've got a better source I'm more than happy to toss my incorrect assumptions and cheer the B24 :)
-
I want this B-24 Liberator in memory of the real men who flew her and disappeared over Yugoslavia on August 27th 1944 my second birthday.
This was given to me by a lifelong friend who never got to meet his dad who is second from right on the bottom.
Take a close look at the faces of these men, they died so we could live in freedom.
God Bless Them and The U.S.A.
Beeg
P.S. Yes, great nose art.
-
I think I've heard that story somewhere before... on the history channel or something I think when they were interveiwing some B24 pilot or gunner.
Originally posted by Dux
I had a Drafting teacher in high school who flew them over Germany. If we could get him talking about it, he would forget to give us homework! :)
He told us one story of how they came back damaged and were going to have to belly land. Standard operating procedure is that you jettison the belly ball turret. Apparently the gunner was having trouble getting it to release, so he tried stomping on it.
You can guess the rest :(
-
Yes I'd like to see a B24 , B25 and B29 in AH ,but not until the bombers get an Accurate FM ,not the gameplay concession we have now. If they do introduce a B29 I don't want it going fully loaded with bombs and fuel to 60k and still doing loops and tight turns and I'm afraid it won't be a cheap perk considering the unbalancing effect it would have.
-
The B24 and the B25 in 1.10 would be really nice, and a huge suprise too :D
But I hardly believe we will get those in 1.10, and never ever at the same time.
I might be wrong, but a while a go I believe that I heard Pyro say he hated the B25, but I might be wrong....
Anyway HTC, keep up the excelent work :D:D:D
The Wild Vikings
(http://www.lasse.as/twv.gif)
Commanding Officer
Lasse
-
Just what is the service ceiling fo a b29? bomb load? what would make it so unbalancing? (besides nukes):D
-
25,000 pounds, 32,000 feet, 375 MPH, 12 50 cal, 1 high velocity 20mm in the tail.
Enough bombs to take out 8 hangers with one left over, almost as fast as a fighter at altitude, and enough firepoer to kill anything that tries to catch up.
It would be a major monster to bring down in the main. Almost take a mission all by itself, but you'd have to catch it first.
-
I never heard of a B29 carrying 25,000 pounds of bombs. I think it only carries 16,000 pounds of bombs. I am pretty sure the B29b only had a single gunner-tail gunner-. The rest of its turrets were removed. This may be the B29 that was able to carry 25,000 pounds.
-
AIUI The "standard" load was 20,000, max was 25,000. Kinda like putting 12,000 in a B-17G. It'll fly, but it won't like it much.
YMMV. IMBTFU. HAND.
-
Specification of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress:
Powerplant:
Four Wright R-3350-23 Duplex Cyclone eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engines each with two General Electric turbosuperchargers, delivering 2200 hp for takeoff and having a war emergency rating of 2300 hp at 25,000 feet.
Performance:
Maximum speed 357 mph at 30,000 feet, 306 mph at sea level. Maximum continuous cruising speed 342 mph at 30,000 feet. Economical cruising speed 220 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial climb rate 900 feet per minute at combat weight. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 38 minutes. Service ceiling 33,600 feet. Maximum range was 3250 miles at 25,000 feet with 5000 pound bomb load. Practical operational radius was 1600-1800 miles. Maximum ferry range was 5600 miles, rising to 6000 miles with the extra fuel.
Weights:
74,500 pounds empty, normal loaded 120,000 pounds, maximum overload 135,000 pounds.
Dimensions:
Wingspan 141 feet 3 inches, length 99 feet 0 inches, height 27 feet 9 inches, wing area 1736 square feet.
Armament:
Twelve 0.50-inch machine guns in four remotely-controlled turrets (two above and two below the fuselage) and in the tail, each with 1000 rounds of ammunition. In addition, early production blocks had a single rearward-firing 20-mm M2 Type B cannon with 100 rounds in the tail position. Later, two more guns were provided for the forward top turret. Maximum internal short-range, low-altitude bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude.
-
Originally posted by majic
How would you suggest I imagine a B-29? :)
in some other game.
;)
-
doesn't the b24 takemore load as the b17?
it got a much bigger baydoor for instance
-
B-17 6,000
B-24 8,800 or 8,000 depending on source
B-24 "was built in bigger numbers than any other American aircraft in history, in more versions for more purposes than any other aircraft in history, and served on every front in WWII and with 15 Allied nations." (19,203)
"...the Liberator Production Pool- made more than 18,300 Liberators, about 5,000 more than the total number of B-17's. The B-24 was not operational before WWII and was not operational after the war... The total number of people involved in the making of it, sevicing it, and in flying the B-24 outnumbered those involved with any other airplane, in any country, in any time. There were more B-24's built than any other American airplane ever built."
-
Great attempt at a hi-jack guys, but this is about the B24. You want to talk about the uberbomber, start another thread!:)
I might quibble with Puck's figures, but not seriously because like Puck, I can't seem to find two sources that agree on performance stats for either the B17 or the B24.
Max bomb load for the B24H/J (the one we would want) is listed variously at 8,000lb, and 12,800lb. As for the B17G, one source lists the max bombload as 17,600lbs!
But whatever I've looked at, one thing is clear. The B17G we have in AH is carrying a pretty damn small bombload. Even if bombers rarely carried the max, 6,000lbs still seems pretty small to me compared to both recorded mission loadouts and theoretical capacities (in fact 6,000lbs is often listed as the maximum for the B17F). So if we just had the capability for more ordinance in the B17, the whole B24 thing would probably go away. In fact, so would the Lanc, and even requests for the B29. Because we'd basically have a bomber that was capable of putting the hurt on in a serious way (like the Lanc) but is defensible and slow enough to stop people whining that they can't catch it.
However, before I get too carried away here, can someone point me in the direction of authortitative bomb load totals for say, the B17G, and the B24J?
Incidentally, can someone tell me why the B17G we have is missing the machine gun in the radio operator's compartment (although this version is definitely one-step up on the one in WB, which was missing both the radio operator's gun and the cheek guns).
(BTW: interesting fact about the B24D. Its internal armour protection was so bad that there are numerous reports of waist gunners being killed or maimed by rounds from head on attacks travelling through the fueselage).
-
I would really like to see the B24 and the B25 in here as they both played a great role in WW2 and were produced in large numbers. It would also give us more diversity in medium and heavy bomber selection which is missing right now.
I think but do not remember for sure that later model B24s may have had a belly turret that was dropped into position after take off. I would not bet the store on that though. Maybe an aircraft scholar could check on it.
ET
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I second JPEG's request.
I actually have a client who was a B-24 Libertaor Pilot in Europe during WWII
When I found this out, I immediately took him to lunch to pick his brain.
He said none of his gunners ever got a kill, and the worst part of flying a mission was always the Flak.
My Grand-Father-in-law was also a B-24 pilot, but he passed away years ago so I never found out much about him.
Cool! My dad flew (as pilot) B-24s (90 missions) in New Guinea, 43rd bomb group, 64th squadron. I have his logbook (which says virtually nothing about the missions, but is still interesting to browse through). He passed away in '88.
-AlgyFT
-
My dad (lower left) and crew in front of their B-24
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Yes I'd like to see a B24 , B25 and B29 in AH ,but not until the bombers get an Accurate FM ,not the gameplay concession we have now. If they do introduce a B29 I don't want it going fully loaded with bombs and fuel to 60k and still doing loops and tight turns and I'm afraid it won't be a cheap perk considering the unbalancing effect it would have.
The LW guys actually have a rare "jet bomber", and its model has actually been amended to have a rare rearward firing gun, and yet you still lobby against adding a significantly historical addition like the B-24.
Figures, why should today be any different
-
you spend more time whining about lw guys then anything.
No one lobbied for a 234. A 234 doesn't have that great an impact on gameplay anyway.
No one said never model a b24. Theres all sorts of other stuff that would be better for the game then another 4 eng fluff.
The buff model is supposed to be redone and if it works like I read it then hell ya b24. But theres nothing in ah that requires a b24. Not even in the ct.
a b25 or even an he 111 or a wellington or any number of other 4 eng buffs would be better becaused they add more toward the ct.
I personally think it would be better to get early mid early and mid fighters in he game 1st. The VVS and IJA/N need numerous aircraft. If its true the 4 eng buffs take much more time then fighters then keep it on the bac burner.
Not just lw guys feel this way.
-
Who's whining? I am just telling it like it is...Airbag:) i am just cutting through the Bull..Ogna that you spew out. I didnt say you asked for the 234. HTC modeled it and you aren't thankful it seems. A b24 would be a nice addition. I hope they model it too.
As usuall, you come up with this cockomamy logic, that only makes sense if you ar a LW fan (not all mind you)
-
I don't know if it's bad farm animal love,or you got an STD from some tainted sheep ammo or anything of that matter but, I didn't say just NO, don't add the B-24, what I meant is that I'm all for it but, again I don't want them doing loops at 40kft with little or no restrictions like we have , they don't get any performance hit(because they're a gameplay concession) not a part of the flight model.
The B-24 should be added the B25 aswell it would give me better targets for my 109 and 190, frankly the B17s and lancs as targets are getting kind of repetitive in nature and I'm losing interest.
In regards of the rear guns of the Arado, look it's a perk plane it's supposed to be rare in the arena. It's almost never seen, and I remember the thread where it was discussed in regard to the rear guns for the Ar234 , I remarked that if it had it I'm all for it if it didn't they shouldn't (BTW it was supposed to go in from the start only Superfly had some trouble with the periscope and sighting mechanism for the rear gun which was scrapped). Now that we have it, flew the Ar234 with 20mm it does nothing more than weigh it down and maybe a would be attacker thinks twice before going on an Ar234s tail from dead 6 so sometimes I just leave it unloaded and lighten the plane a tad.
I didn't say anything about when they added it ? Apparently you weren't in the arena when I gave congrats to HT after the patch partly because of FPS improvements.
So again don't try to give more meaning that what is being said there in plain text and get defensive like a 5yr old.
-
I think we nead another US bomber like we all nead a whole in the head.
The only reasion to add another US bomber (other than a B 29) would be because it is your favorate ride, it brings nothing new to the game adds no diversity and preputates the ethnocentricity's of of our curent plane set. How about a buff for Russia,or Italy? or an Emily for Japan?
-
So whats wrong with wanting our favorite "ride" from WW II?. We do pay for this. :)
-
the b24 is my favorite buff and it will get used a lot in the MA
I wanted the bf110 too, everyone said: oh no its redundant cant compete etc.
well the bf110 gets used... a lot
the b24 is far from redundant or waste of time.
it will get flown in the MA a lot!
the main reason many dont fly buffs is because there hasnt been a new decent buff added that can haul a lot of bombs and carry a lot of guns since the b17.
only one country made such buffs and only one country used them in large quantities in daylight raids.
the US.
they had two heavy 4 engine bombers throughout most of the war:
B24 & b17
we have:
44 fighters
1 transport
8 bombers
of those 8 bombers only 2 are 4 engined heavy bombers
of those 2 4 engined heavy bombers only one has heavy defensive guns.
b24 in the MA makes sense.
-
See the previous post. I'm in full agreement.
-
Plus it would be nice to hear the B-17 and B-24 squads argue on open channel:)
IC
-
Well, It should have This paint job :)
Took this picture yesterday at Cavanaughs Museum (Addison Airport) took a load of shots inside it, my only regret is not springing for the $350 to ride in her.
-
This baby is the last flying B-24 Liberator owned by the Collings Foundation. I'm supposing the young lady is smiling upon reflecting on the dragons tongue?
Beeg
P.S. I've got an .avi set to the Air Force Hymn where this baby is shown flying.
Originally posted by JimBear
Well, It should have This paint job :)
-
:D
BTW, There's another flyable B-24 at the Fantasy of Flight musem in the Orlando, FL area.
IC