Well, there's B-29 on the front page...

[Ack-Ack]

And the exact same missions could have and would have been flown by other aircraft. Namely the 17. To equal effect.
I think the residents of Dresden would agree

no, the exact same missions couldn't have or would have flown the missions the B-29 did over Japan.  If that was the case, the B-29 would not have replaced the B-24 as the primary long range strategic bomber in the Pacific.  In the PTO, the B-17 was actually a rather minor player with the lion share of the long range strategic bombing being done by the B-24 and later the B-29.  The B-17 just didn't have the necessary range to fullful the long range strategic bombing role in the Pacific.

ack-ack

[BillyD]

Who cares they wont be flown at 40000 ft an toejam. Just another big huge target in game to fill with 30mm rounds as they LancStuka tm V bases in V missions.

[Chalenge]

no, the exact same missions couldn't have or would have flown the missions the B-29 did over Japan.  If that was the case, the B-29 would not have replaced the B-24 as the primary long range strategic bomber in the Pacific.  In the PTO, the B-17 was actually a rather minor player with the lion share of the long range strategic bombing being done by the B-24 and later the B-29.  The B-17 just didn't have the necessary range to fullful the long range strategic bombing role in the Pacific.

ack-ack

Quoted Akak as a way of stressing his point.

The first missions Krusty was talking about had a leg to target of over 1500 miles excluding rally times. That meant a mission range of 3100 miles minimum which exceeded the range of the B-17s by quite a bit. These first missions were from air bases in India to Bangkok.

[DREDIOCK]

no, the exact same missions couldn't have or would have flown the missions the B-29 did over Japan.  If that was the case, the B-29 would not have replaced the B-24 as the primary long range strategic bomber in the Pacific.  In the PTO, the B-17 was actually a rather minor player with the lion share of the long range strategic bombing being done by the B-24 and later the B-29.  The B-17 just didn't have the necessary range to fullful the long range strategic bombing role in the Pacific.

ack-ack

Ok, my bad. The B24 then. Regardless.
These missions would have been flown by something else with the same end result. Cant even use alt as a difference maker as the altitude of the raids was lowered to that of just about any other bomber being put up because of problems with accuracy over 25,000 feet and at 30,000 planes were in the jetstream and the true airspeed of the ord was so high as to be off the scales of the bombsite

http://books.google.com/books?id=5SdDW64827QC&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=lowered+the+mission+altitude+of+the+B29+because&source=bl&ots=Uu-LxzWzxW&sig=oEwxm6ADrPQbflqwai8GlohEW1M&hl=en&ei=ub9bTcXbL8qr8Ab678m7Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

[DREDIOCK]

Quoted Akak as a way of stressing his point.

The first missions Krusty was talking about had a leg to target of over 1500 miles excluding rally times. That meant a mission range of 3100 miles minimum which exceeded the range of the B-17s by quite a bit. These first missions were from air bases in India to Bangkok.

And where is it you cant fly to in a 17 or 24 in game on a full tank of fuel and still have alot of fuel left over?

[mthrockmor]

So if you pump a few dozen 20mm rounds into the engines, do they let of a beautiful black plume of fire and smoke?

This will be fun. Just another buff to dump. Of all the bombers the one that I think is the most overmodeled is the B26. It's firepower seems twice that of the B17 or -24.

Boo

[Dadsguns]

And where is it you cant fly to in a 17 or 24 in game on a full tank of fuel and still have alot of fuel left over?

There are maps that are large enough that you will run out of fuel to get to a target with 100%, the alt and fuel management will determine your range.  Use way more fuel at lower alts than higher alts.

[waystin2]

Looks beautiful HTC!

[Hap]

One small piece of satisfaction abides for me.  HTC adds the B29.  In the years of threads, I said it would be great idea much to the chortling of those who ridicule.

For fun:  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Superfortress&x=0&y=0

[Colt44]

I LIKES....

[RTHolmes]

As long as the historically accurate 526 ft/min maximum climb rate is modeled precisely, I could care less. 38 minutes to 20K....LMAO.

have a look at the charts again, in AH the B-29 will typically be making 2,000fpm+

it will have the best climbrate of all our heavies.

[Vinkman]

Waffle and Greebo,

Detail looks amazing. Maore than just bring the bomber to the game, uver created a real piece of artwork to operate and behold in action. That kind of detail makes this game very special. I fly P-39s and 109s just because of the cockpit detail.

Dale's lucky to have you guys......ask for a raise. 


Vinkman

[MarineUS]

If everyone could quit arguing for a second and just look at the beauty that has been created. This new addition is more than just a new plane. It is a view into how far the game has come, and how much better it can and will be! This is only a glimpse. I can't wait!  

[Krusty]

have a look at the charts again, in AH the B-29 will typically be making 2,000fpm+

it will have the best climbrate of all our heavies.

Which is why its introduction into the game is a joke. The performance will be several times better than ever flown in the real war.


EDIT: Now if they could somehow do something so that your experience against them is somewhat more historic, that would be ideal.... Engines limited output at high AoA? Spontaneous engine fires if you climb at full throttle? Something...

[JUGgler]

B-29     what is that?


BTW, you guys see the new 4 engine JUG on the front page?  



JUGgler