Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Beefcake on July 25, 2000, 05:28:00 PM

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: Beefcake on July 25, 2000, 05:28:00 PM

If we had the B17 gunship, then people could really whine about buffs guns and ackstaring. I mean it only had 19 x 50s in it. Think about. It had 6 50 cals mounted on a gun carage in the nose, it had 2 top turrets instead of 1, and the the Port and Starboard waist guns were upgraded to twin 50 cals instead of the the single. It carried no bombs, but had a crap load of ammo. It was used as a "wolf in sheeps clothing." It flew with "normal" B17s to act as a gun platform aganist fighters. Can anyone get the layout of it?

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: Kieren on July 25, 2000, 05:30:00 PM

Totally against this one. You are just asking for ackstarring. No thanks.

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: Beefcake on July 25, 2000, 05:41:00 PM

I know, I was just joking............wait....... .ok nm I see, but does anyone have a layout for it?

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: funked on July 25, 2000, 05:59:00 PM

Go here, look under XB-40:  http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/bomber3.htm (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/bomber3.htm)

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: funked on July 25, 2000, 06:03:00 PM

P.S. If you want a truly macho bomber, check out the Privateer:  http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_38.html (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_38.html)

This is the Navy's version of the B-24, with a single vertical fin, ball turret in the nose, two top turrets, a tail turret, and twin-gun blister turrets on each side replacing the waist guns.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-25-2000).]

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: Citabria on July 25, 2000, 06:04:00 PM

I wou;d prefer a pb4y-2 Privateer

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: funked on July 25, 2000, 06:08:00 PM

LOL diseased minds think alike.

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: Jigster on July 25, 2000, 08:56:00 PM

 

Quote

Originally posted by funked:
P.S. If you want a truly macho bomber, check out the Privateer:  http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_38.html (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_38.html)

This is the Navy's version of the B-24, with a single vertical fin, ball turret in the nose, two top turrets, a tail turret, and twin-gun blister turrets on each side replacing the waist guns.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-25-2000).]

Tis a nice plane. Been following the build-up of one that the LSFM in Galveston, Texas, has. Rather have a Harpoon though  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

- Jig
-------
It is not recommend to "wet the sights" of a P-51.

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: Citabria on July 25, 2000, 09:00:00 PM

lol funked we both posted the same opinion at the same time.

thats sick

but i still think a pb4y-2 would rock

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: funked on July 26, 2000, 03:22:00 AM

Privateer will TRULY ROCK.   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Especially if we have some ships to kill.

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: Downtown on July 26, 2000, 06:35:00 AM

Beefster, where were you when I posted about the Blood Dragon on the GP/FB Forum?

I said since people want to fly bombers as fighters anyhow why not model the blood dragons including the gaudy paint jobs (there was a white one with green, purple, red, and yellow polka dots.

I believe they had additional ammo for all those bristling .50s also.

I said that if they did this load out then they should take away the artificial net lag enhancement to the buff guns.

------------------
 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
     lkbrown1@tir.com      
 http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!

[This message has been edited by Downtown (edited 07-26-2000).]

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: miko2d on July 26, 2000, 09:11:00 AM

 B17 Gunship was an ill-conceived project that did not work out in the real life and was scrapped immediately.

 B17 had an abysmal bombload as it was, considering the crew and its size. Putting many drones in the formation would not help any. Besides, they did not offer protection agains flak.
 Their bigger problem was the folowing:
 Once the regular B17s dropped their load and become much lighter, the gunship still had all that weight off ammunition and extra weapons to carry, so it's top speed on egress was much lower then a regular bomber.

 They either had to fall out of formation and leave the formation without a cover and themselves vulnerable, or the whole formation had to fly slower and linger extra time in the enemy territory.

miko--

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: Beefcake on July 26, 2000, 11:48:00 AM

Yep I watched the video of the gunships, and it showed how they would fall back after the normal bombers droped. But think about it. You never have enough bombers to fly a formation anyway.  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

Funked, I likes the pb4y-2 Privateer. Me thinks it would make a great bomber. Course I still want my B25J special model that had 8X50s mounted in the nose and 4X50s mounted in blister guns under the cocpit.

[This message has been edited by Beefcake (edited 07-26-2000).]

Title: WE NEED THE B17 GUNSHIP!!!!!!
Post by: Jigster on July 26, 2000, 02:58:00 PM

Mmmm better idea. How bout the project Aprhodite B-17's?  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

- Jig
------
Fact: A Chicken's head explodes at 7.71 Hz, resonation.