I would like the Super Fortress

[CaptainFokker]

You posted as I was editing, recheck the post. The ordnance payloads on them are inaccurate.

EDIT:
From what little research I did, productions numbers are just under 4,000 - though that undoubtedly includes post-WWII production as well. As far as how many were utilized in WWII, I would estimate that in their earliest sorties, were numbered at less than 1,000. They were however, being rolled off of the assembly line at a pretty good pace.

EDIT:
Forgot to add that the Soviets also had a twin to the B29 that they utilized in a few different variations, though they were constructed and modelled identically from several B29s that the Soviets had "captured". A little research goes a long way.

[1DOGFITE]

<S> Gentlemen,

My opinion is.....I would like another HIGH ALTITUDE "Perk" Bomber.  There is only 1 perk bomber in the game.  My bomber perks are building up...I want to spend them on something.  The AR234 doesn't carry enough bombs for my satisfaction either.  Just a gamer with an opinion like everyone else.

[Karnak]

Mosquito B.Mk XVI has a best altitude of about 27,000ft.

Still, might not have enough bombs for you.  Options would be four 500lbers in the bomb bay or four 500lbers in the bomb bay and two 500lbers on the wings or one 4,000lb 'cookie' in the bomb bay.

[Spikes]

<S> Gentlemen,

My opinion is.....I would like another HIGH ALTITUDE "Perk" Bomber.  There is only 1 perk bomber in the game.  My bomber perks are building up...I want to spend them on something.  The AR234 doesn't carry enough bombs for my satisfaction either.  Just a gamer with an opinion like everyone else.

If you want to have fun do what I do, use the 234 as a divebomber/dogfighter. It's a formidable dogfighter once you use it tactically, ask all the people that I've towered. you won't turn with people, but the key is to draw the fighter close in (400/600) and blast him with the 20mms. I dunno, I have fun doing it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for another perked bomber, but it's something for me to do in the mean time.

[stephen]

WE DEMAND THE B-29!!!!!
and bigger hangers to stow it in....

Lower the perk price of all planes with its introduction....simple

[trigger2]

Let's see.

The B-17 had a MAX payload of 17,600 lbs of ordnance (short range - reduced fuel load)
The B-24 had an internal payload of 8,000 lbs, when using optional external bomb racks
Then there's the B-29 that could handle up to 20,000 pounds.

So, there's 3 - and they're all american WWII aircraft.

EDIT: I have the B17 and B24 listed because apparently the game has inaccurate payloads. The B24 in-game only allows 6000lbs, and the B-24 has 8,000lbs (all internal) which is inaccurate.


Source: http://www.globalaircraft.org/

b-24 not innacurate, that's its short range load, the B-17 is closer to it's long range load, but is in between the two. Not quite innacurate unless they were off the scale.

I already take out a small airfield by myself in Lancs.....But, I think we do need another "Perk" bomber.

Small airfield, okay. In a b-29 you could drop a small airfield, total its town, then drop another fields hangers...
Or drop 1 large airfield alone...

[CaptainFokker]

b-24 not innacurate, that's its short range load, the B-17 is closer to it's long range load, but is in between the two. Not quite innacurate unless they were off the scale.
Small airfield, okay. In a b-29 you could drop a small airfield, total its town, then drop another fields hangers...
Or drop 1 large airfield alone...

How do you figure it to be accurate?: The game lists the B-24 as having 8,000 lbs of ordnance (which would be accurate provided it utilized the external bombrails, which is does not. The B-17 is capped at 6,000 lbs (which is needless to say not even close to 17,600 lbs), which is not even an option, even at a 25% fuel loadout. I listed the source to back that up; so my question is, where is yours? Oh wait, my bad - you didn't have one.

Thank you, and come again.

[5PointOh]

B-17 Flying Fortress
In response for the Army's request for a large, multiengine bomber, the B-17 (Model 299) prototype, financed entirely by Boeing, went from design board to flight test in less than 12 months.

The B-17 was a low-wing monoplane that combined aerodynamic features of the XB-15 giant bomber, still in the design stage, and the Model 247 transport. The B-17 was the first Boeing military aircraft with a flight deck instead of an open cockpit and was armed with bombs and five .30-caliber machine guns mounted in clear "blisters."

The first B-17s saw combat in 1941, when the British Royal Air Force took delivery of several B-17s for high-altitude missions. As World War II intensified, the bombers needed additional armament and armor.

The B-17E, the first mass-produced model Flying Fortress, carried nine machine guns and a 4,000-pound bomb load. It was several tons heavier than the prototypes and bristled with armament. It was the first Boeing airplane with the distinctive -- and enormous -- tail for improved control and stability during high-altitude bombing. Each version was more heavily armed.

In the Pacific, the planes earned a deadly reputation with the Japanese, who dubbed them "four-engine fighters." The Fortresses were also legendary for their ability to stay in the air after taking brutal poundings. They sometimes limped back to their bases with large chunks of the fuselage shot off.

Boeing plants built a total of 6,981 B-17s in various models, and another 5,745 were built under a nationwide collaborative effort by Douglas and Lockheed (Vega). Only a few B-17s survive today; most were scrapped at the end of the war. Some of the last Flying Fortresses met their end as target drones in the 1960s -- destroyed by Boeing Bomarc missiles.

B-17G Specifications First flight: July 28, 1935 (prototype)
Model number: 299
Classification: Bomber
Span: 103 feet 9 inches
Length: 74 feet 9 inches
Gross weight: 65,000 pounds
Top speed: 287 mph
Cruising speed: 150 mph
Range (max.): 3,750 miles
Ceiling: 35,600 feet
Power: Four 1,200-horsepower Wright R-1820-97 engines
Accommodation: 2 pilots, bombardier, radio-operator, 5 gunners
Armament: 11 to 13 machine guns, 9,600-pound bomb load
Source:http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html

I don't know, I like my source...thank you, come again.

[CaptainFokker]

Armament: 11 to 13 machine guns, 9,600-pound bomb load

That doesn't change the fact that the game's limitations on the B-17 are inaccurate. Besides, the payload I listed, not to mention SPECIFICALLY STATED was in a short-range loadout.

KTHNXBAI

[Karnak]

That doesn't change the fact that the game's limitations on the B-17 are inaccurate. Besides, the payload I listed, not to mention SPECIFICALLY STATED was in a short-range loadout.

KTHNXBAI

The bomb loads we have in AH are the common mission loads, not the rare or never used loads that would be the only loads taken in the game.  The standard B-17 load was 6,000lbs, standard B-24 load was 8,000lbs and the standard Lancaster load was 13,000 or 14,000lbs.

[trigger2]

The bomb loads we have in AH are the common mission loads, not the rare or never used loads that would be the only loads taken in the game.  The standard B-17 load was 6,000lbs, standard B-24 load was 8,000lbs and the standard Lancaster load was 13,000 or 14,000lbs.

Why do you guys always get on before I do and say what I was going to say? 

You know... new wish, 2 weekers aren't allowed to make wishlist requests. Have to have at least had a sub. for at least 2 months...
See, this game is more complex then you see right now. It's not all about you, in fact, for the most part, it's not about you. This game is about appealing to the masses while keeping it BALANCED (I know... hard concept, don't give one player the ability to win it all on their own...), fun, and accurate. Fine line. The Aces High staff do an OUTSTANDING job at what they do, and cover all their ground before considering adding anything, then when it is added, shocker to say, its pretty accurate. It's amazing what research can do for you...

[CaptainFokker]

That's funny - really it is.

Especially since 90% of all posts that I see (especially for the B29) are mostly from members that have anywhere from several hundred, to several thousand posts - but of course that apparently automatically makes them "2 weekers" in your eyes. It's also funny that you say "it's about the masses" - and my best guess (judging by the MANY posts on the subject across MANY threads) would seem to appear that at least a good number of the "masses" support a B29.

Now let's see - you want to talk about how it would be "unbalanced" and/or "disruptive to gameplay", yet what I have yet to see is a solid, and valid reason as to why. Arguements are never won without giving a solid reason as to why something should not be integrated. Yet, I do not dispute the fact that the HT team does an outstanding job, nor have I ever said anything to the contrary. Though it would seem to me that there's a certain group of sweetheartbags here that just want to shoot down one idea or another simply because they do not agree with it, or they offer the same roadkill generic excuses stating how it would be "unbalanced", etc etc etc, blah blah blah.

And I'm sure that a good majority of you would also be responbile for steering any new players away from actually subscribing to the game, simply because you choose to be moronic amazinhunks to anyone that hasn't been playing this game for umpteen years.

My word of advice, pull your head from your ass, and go get laid. Alternative advice: save yourself the years of sexual frustration and go ahead and shoot yourself in the head.


I'm done with you morons.

[Guppy35]

LOL.  Promise?

[mensa180]

LOL!


I would love HTC forever (more) if they made a basic B29 model and it was only available in the terrain/obj editor for use on the ground of custom maps.  I would just find that hilarious .

[Noir]

I did give my reasons, nobody answered, and now you moved to the insults chapter.

who's the moron ?

funny indeed