PDA

View Full Version : flyable B17... is it true?



Goosehead
06-03-2004, 06:15 PM
man do we need a nice flyable B17 bomber or what... come people. If anyone can pull it off it's Ubisoft.............. you guys rock!

Goose http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gifhead

Goosehead
06-03-2004, 06:15 PM
man do we need a nice flyable B17 bomber or what... come people. If anyone can pull it off it's Ubisoft.............. you guys rock!

Goose http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gifhead

VW-IceFire
06-03-2004, 10:15 PM
If there is going to be a USAAF heavy bomber in the PTO then it really should be the B-24 Liberator which was used in large numbers in the PTO compaired to the B-17 which was better suited to operation in Europe.

The main production variant of the B-17 wasn't even used in the PTO.

I'm all for one to be flyable...but with limited resources and the massive undertaking that a heavy bomber would represent I'd rather see one that was actually used in quanities.

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

ElAurens
06-03-2004, 10:25 PM
This is the Consolidated bomber we should have for PF.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2069L.jpg

The PB2Y Coronado.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

VF-17_Jolly
06-04-2004, 01:44 AM
By all means have the flyable B-17 but not in PF....We realy want

http://www.navylib.com/ContributedPics/S.Hawley/59587.jpg

or

http://www.navylib.com/ContributedPics/S.Hawley/38894.jpg

If they were flyable or not i wouldnt care I prefer mediums
http://www.flightjournal.com/images/articles/ventura/formation.jpg
PV-1 pilots felt that flying the Ventura was just like flying a fighter. It had a cruise speed of 300mph, and it was very maneuverable

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/ventura/ventura_1.asp

http://www.skyknights.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/jolly.jpg

[This message was edited by VF-17_JOLLY on Fri June 04 2004 at 12:53 AM.]

Art-J
06-04-2004, 03:56 AM
Aaaah , the Privateer! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif It's ugly, but at the same time it looks "serious"! THAT would be a bird to fly! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

P.S. - there was a guy modelling one for PF... Does anyone know what's going on with this project?

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Haribo-Zeke_small_3_txt.jpg

Longjocks
06-04-2004, 04:52 AM
Yay... I can post pictures of planes too!
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/MilitaryJets/294.jpg

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif "Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."

ElAurens
06-04-2004, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Longjocks:
Yay... I can post pictures of planes too!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what, praytell, does an early model B52 have to do with this discussion?

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

WOLFMondo
06-04-2004, 06:08 AM
Did the Liberator server much in the PTO? Even if it was only minor I'd still like it. B17's get remembered as the US heavy bomber, the Liberator doesn't really get the recognition it deserves IMHO.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

NegativeGee
06-04-2004, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Did the Liberator server much in the PTO? Even if it was only minor I'd still like it. B17's get remembered as _the_ US heavy bomber, the Liberator doesn't really get the recognition it deserves IMHO.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
http://www.wolfgaming.net<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As VW-IceFire said, the Liberator saw more deployment than the Fortress in the PTO. So the B-24 would be the 4 engined bomber to model for PF, if any (argh! so many crew positions!).

Plus, if we had Liberators, we could all find out what dive bombing in a 4-engined heavy was like http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - G√ľnther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

VW-IceFire
06-04-2004, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Did the Liberator server much in the PTO? Even if it was only minor I'd still like it. B17's get remembered as _the_ US heavy bomber, the Liberator doesn't really get the recognition it deserves IMHO.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
http://www.wolfgaming.net<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes...the Liberators range advantage over the B-17 was the crucial factor in the B-24's success in the theater.

In the PTO, its recognition was well deserved.

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

ElAurens
06-04-2004, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
Plus, if we had Liberators, we could all find out what dive bombing in a 4-engined heavy was like<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I'm looking forward to dive bombing in the PBY.

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

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Oscar_352nd
06-05-2004, 07:44 AM
Most, If not all B-17's had been rotated out of the Pacific by December 1943. The better aircrews were sent to B-29 Training while the aircraft themselves were ferried on to the UK as replacements, with some of those receiving modifications prior to deployment.

The USAAF in the Pacific did things a little differently than the boys over in the ETO. In the Pacific, they organized bomber groups based on capabilities and matched them to fighter suppport groups. There were LIGHT, MEDIUM, HEAVY and VERY HEARY bomber types.

THe B-24 was, by far, the predoninant HEAVY bomber, with A-20s, B-25s, and B-26's filling in the LIGHT and MEDIUM catagories.

So, for my money, cockpits for the B-25, and the addition of the B-24 and A-20 to PF would be the bettter combination.

I know its easy for the "Navy" boys to get wrapped up in this new version - PF - espeically because of the carrrier operations (I can't wait for this - LOL!), but don't forget that the USAAF played a MAJOR role in providing theater-wide bomber and fighter support.

Oscar

Oscar's Hangar (http://webpages.charter,net/rogerlavender)
352nd Virtual Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfg.com/Home)

http://webpages.charter.net/rogerlavender/images/400sig.GIF