PDA

View Full Version : B-24 why no mention of it?



nearmiss
04-14-2004, 07:36 PM
Why no B-24s? Have I missed something?

A big bird that made a lot of noise, and more than a lot of destruction. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Course it ain't as purty as a Boin' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

nearmiss
04-14-2004, 07:36 PM
Why no B-24s? Have I missed something?

A big bird that made a lot of noise, and more than a lot of destruction. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Course it ain't as purty as a Boin' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

JR_Greenhorn
04-14-2004, 08:58 PM
I think it's been promised as AI with Pacific Fighters. You might try asking about it at that forum instead. I'm pretty sure it won't be flyable for the initial release, but if you could find a cockpit modeller...

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/F2G-1D.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
04-14-2004, 09:07 PM
I was going to post a thread asking what is the one plane people now feel is missing in FB the most, and my answer would have easily been the B-24. With the AEP move towards the western front and the amazing amount of planes (here and in the making), the Liberator seems to the most obvious one missing. It was a MASS produced heavy bomber that operated in many theatres so it would be a great fit in FB. We are lucky to get any planes at all, but the B-24 is one that I really hope we get at some point. If we had the B-24 along with Typhoon, B-26, and Mosquito then we would really have the option to make almost any scenario which is absolutely incredible and a credit to Oleg and the 3rd party community.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

StG77_Stuka
04-14-2004, 11:53 PM
Yes! Hope this one is flyable http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.egalleryone.com/images/kodera/kodera_-_hitting_the_kwai.JPG

LuckyBoy1
04-15-2004, 12:29 AM
The argument that there isn't enogh documentation on U.S. bombing crates to do the skins both inside and outside is bunk! I've checked into it and you can get complete schematics for all the major U.S. bombers. Besides, Oleg's Russian and if you want to know a U.S. secret, just ask your local G.R.U. man! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

There is a whole lot more work in putting them together as flyable. I'm sure they finger that they could produce 4-6 fighters for the work that goes into 1 flyable bomber complete with all gun positions and bombsites etc. Then they finger all we care about is seeing something like... 20 new, flyable planes... and no care for the fact that yes, fighters were important, but the B-17, B-29 and B-24 won the air war! So much for immersion! Yet I think they miss-judge a huge market out there that's playing some pretty sad flight simulation games right now so they can play with a flyable B-17.

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-15-2004, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
"...I think they miss-judge a huge market out there that's playing some pretty sad flight simulation games right now so they can play with a flyable B-17.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I have to agree here. I don't anticipate any further developement on the heavies to come through for any type of inclusion in FB, but to not have definitive plans for a larger contingent of heavies in BoB (or at least later expansions for it) would be a real shame.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

nearmiss
04-15-2004, 07:59 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif For my part I'd just as soon have an AI version, at this time.

In fact, if Oleg could create bombers that allowed us to put large numbers of them in missions and still have flyable FPS...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif AI is a first step toward a complete multi-engine aircraft.

-------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SodBuster43
04-15-2004, 01:58 PM
Yes, the B-24 is probably one of the most important US heavy bombers of WWII. Many were built in my home state of Michigan at Willow Run. At our local air show last summer there was a B-24 as part of the WWII collection. Fun to watch in the air along with the two P-51's also at the air show http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

There are a lot of flight simmers like myself that prefer to play with bigger airplanes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

dahdah
04-15-2004, 03:07 PM
SodBuster4, if you have not been to the EAA museum in Oshgosh, you should go. They have a model of the Willow Run plant and many other intersting a/c and exhibits. The plant is MASSIVE.

A link to check out, http://www.detnews.com/history/arsenal/arsenal.htm

A pic of the line

http://www.strategosinc.com/b24_production.bmp

A quote from another site,

Willow Run became a reality. It was the embodiment of American ingenuity, perseverance and productivity. Here are some of the statistics:

* 488,193 parts
* 30,000 components
* 24 Major subassemblies
* Peak production- 25 units per day
* 25,000 initial engineering drawings
* Ten model changes in six years
* Thousands of running changes
* 34,533 employees at peak
* 100% Productivity improvement

VW-IceFire
04-15-2004, 03:14 PM
I think the problem is not on reference materials persay but rather on actually doing the modeling/texture work to create a semi-photoreal station for every major place in the plane.

It takes quite a bit of effort...some times entire games are done on a single aircraft like this. I'd love to see one...I'd love to try and fly it (a B-17 or a B-24) but its obviously a huge undertaking and I doubt we'll see one unless a group really gets it together.

There was an attempt to do the stations for a B-24 and the model...they even had videos of the gun turrets. But I haven't seen or heard from those guys in a long while...

I hold out hope for this and other projects.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

04-15-2004, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
Why no B-24s? Have I missed something?

A big bird that made a lot of noise, and more than a lot of destruction. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Course it ain't as purty as a Boin' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blame Hollywood. There were more B-24s than B-17s, but films like "Memphis Belle" have given the B-17 a permanent fame boost.

How about a PB4Y Privateer for Pacific Fighters? That was the Navy's low-altitude variant, based on the B-24 but different in some significant ways. It was used for sub hunting and recon. It had a single vertical stabilizer and a pair of big observation/gunner bubbles on the fuselage, similar to the bubbles on the Catalina.

http://www.netmarine.net/forces/aviat/privat/blason01.jpg

p1ngu666
04-15-2004, 04:57 PM
that was after ww2 i think http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
lib would be great, got everywhere i thinkhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
us brits used them for sub hunting, and for dropping stuff to the resistance, along with the useal stuff.
in burma they used remote controlled bombs to blow up bridges aswell http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
handling was awful till priviter from what ive read. also at high alt u couldnt see ahead because of your AoA http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Zeus-cat
04-15-2004, 06:43 PM
Given the choice between 1) no flyable B-17, B-24, B-26 or Pe-2/3 or 2) a flyable plane with just the pilot and bombardier positions modelled. I'll take the second option every time! All we need are the pilot and bombardier positions in my opinion. Is this an option?

Why do we need to have real people at the gunner positions? I am not whining. I think this is a legitimate question. I have to believe over 99% of the people on this forum would gladly give up every gunner position on the above planes to get a large bomber as flyable in this game.

Zeus-cat

Fennec_P
04-15-2004, 07:10 PM
Thats what makes a bomber different from an attack plane, the gunners.

The TB-3 is lots of fun to gun in. But imagine if you actually had some real firepower...

609IAP_Recon
04-15-2004, 09:08 PM
i'd gladly take any of those above mentioned bombers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Salute!

JG50_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/Recon_sig.gif

p1ngu666
04-16-2004, 06:40 PM
skip the waist gunners, but top, rear, ball and maybe front gunners

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Drone_44th
06-09-2004, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:
_SodBuster4_, if you have not been to the EAA museum in Oshgosh, you should go. They have a model of the Willow Run plant and many other intersting a/c and exhibits. The plant is _MASSIVE_.

A link to check out, http://www.detnews.com/history/arsenal/arsenal.htm

A pic of the line

http://www.strategosinc.com/b24_production.bmp

A quote from another site,

_Willow Run became a reality. It was the embodiment of American ingenuity, perseverance and productivity. Here are some of the statistics:

* 488,193 parts
* 30,000 components
* 24 Major subassemblies
* Peak production- 25 units per day
* 25,000 initial engineering drawings
* Ten model changes in six years
* Thousands of running changes
* 34,533 employees at peak
* 100% Productivity improvement _<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I worked at the plant from 1985-1989. It is now owned by GM and produces Transmissions. All around the plant you can see things that bring you back in time Like the huge hanger doors that open to the still active airfield or the huge network of tunnels and bomb shelters under the plant...
There is also the Yankee Air Museum
http://www.yankeeairmuseum.org
They have a B25 C47 and a B17 that they offer rides in every Wednesday.

Drone

GreyBeast
06-09-2004, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Here are some of the statistics:
25 UNITS PER DAY
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that´s UN - BE - Fa - rt - IN - LIE - VA - BLE!

A new B-24 every hour?????????

Cragger
06-09-2004, 08:48 AM
B-24 is definately overlooked in history, some of it is hollywood and the rest is historical rememberences. The B-24 wasn't as tough as the B-17 and not as many came home shot to hell and back and yet land safetly like the B-17. But, the B-24 with its laminar flow wing could carry a larger bombload and carry it farther than the B-17. However, it was a tricky bird to fly and especially land with its higher than average landing speed and the plane was also prone to pilot fatique much like the Me323.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

Philipscdrw
06-09-2004, 10:47 AM
If you want it, why don't you get Max and model it? Or spam on Netwings instead. No modeller will come here to decide which plane to build next.

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

Rebel_Yell_21
06-09-2004, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cragger:
But, the B-24 with its laminar flow wing could carry a larger bombload and carry it farther than the B-17. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement has been made in so many poorly researched publications that it has become gospel. I just can't watch it go by one more time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Was the 24 faster than the 17? Yes, by approximately 10-15 mph at similiar loads. Though a similiarly loaded 17 needed a shorter takeoff run.

Was the 24 longer ranged than the 17? Yes, it had about a 10% better range at similiar loads, which is significant.

Did the 24 carry a larger bombload? NO. The origin of this statement compared the B-17E to the much newer B-24D. The B-17G and the B-24J both had the same maximum internal bombload. 8x1600 lb bombs for a total of 12,800 lbs. I have manuals and bombrack data and specifications for both (Bomber nut/grog), so this is not an opinion. Further, the 17 could use external racks to carry an additional 2x4000 lb bombs, though the drag would obviously have a deleterious effect on range. In 1945, there was a project involving 17's carrying 2x7000lb bombs to destroy concrete reinforced targets (Shades of the BLU-28 on the last night of Desert Storm) Read the mission logs of the 8th and 15th. Library of Congress has tons of 'em. You will see that 17's and 24's both carried 6x1000 lbs or 12x500 lbs loads on missions of the same distance. Incendiary loads were also common, giving rise to the lower average tonnages for missions overall. The only bomb superiority of the 24 was its ability to carry 4x2000 lb bombs internally, while the 17 would have had to carry 2 internal and 2 external. Carrying 2x2000 lb bombs for the many early attacks against U-boat pens is the origin of the "4000lb" bombload hooey for the 17.

Did the 17 fly higher than the 24? Yes. 17's ingressed targets at 23 to 27000 feet, while 24's had to come in between 18 and 22,000 feet, on average, as the Davis wing made it impossible to stay in formation at higher altitudes. Even those altitudes were physically exhausting on 24 drivers. Flak is certainly a greater threat when you are a mile closer to the guns.

Did 17's survive better than 24's? Yes. 17 crews had a better chance to survive any damage than 24 crews. This and bombing accuracy are the most telling statistics of all. The 1st Division (all 17's) of the 8th Air Force was, without fail, always given the hardest target on any mission. Never were they used in a diversionary manner as the 2nd Division (all 24's) was, yet they still led the 8th in bombing accuracy for every month in the ETO but one, which the mostly 17 3rd Division won. So, even facing the worst opposition, you were still better off in a 17 than a 24. Same thing happened to the 15th Air Force. They were 3/4 24's and the 4 17 groups generally were tasked with the toughest target of the day.

Eaker, Spaatz, Doolittle and the other hierarchy knew that 17's gave them the best chance to hit the target and get the crews home, so targets were distributed accordingly.

Were more 24's produced? Absolutely. And this was a mistake. 24's cost around 270,000 on average, 17's cost around 230,000 on average. In early 43 when things were getting going, it was hard to keep up with losses in the ETO and PTO, so production lines for both aircraft had to be kept going, with no time to retool. Then by mid 44, Consolidated, Vultee, and the other 24 manufacturers had enough political clout to keep their lines open and not go through the expense of retooling with the war's end in sight and the 29 getting its start. With 20-20 hindsight, several of the 24 plants should have been converted to 17 production for the ETO, leaving the 24 in the PTO where it was more than capable and its longer range was an asset.

All this having been said, I am no 24 hater. I love both the 17 and 24 and have known several crewmembers from both. The 24 was an excellent aircraft in many ways and I would certainly hope to have a 24 in this sim as well.

Ok, /rant off.

http://www.303rdbga.com/art-ferris-fortress-S.jpg

Tooz_69GIAP
06-09-2004, 11:49 PM
Guys, instead of always asking the same questions "is this plane getting done, who's doing the pit of that plane, blah, blah, blah" look for yourselves at these two websites:

IL2 Database (http://www.il2db.com/)

and

IL2 Development Forums at Netwings (http://www.netwings.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID43&conf=DCConfID1)

This is where most of the modellers discuss what they are doing, exchange updates on current WIPs, etc, etc.

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg
Za Rodinu!