PDA

View Full Version : B-17?



CasperVF103
02-23-2007, 07:03 PM
Why can we not fly the B17.

Agamemnon22
02-23-2007, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by CasperVF103:
Why can we not fly the B17.

Because noone has made a cockpit for it.

NekoReaperman
02-23-2007, 07:07 PM
Because the airplane did no good in WW2, and oleg hates america, and blah blah blah...

FritzGryphon
02-23-2007, 07:15 PM
B-17 kills babies.

Next you'll be wanting machetes and leaf blowers that spray needles.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

StellarRat
02-24-2007, 12:20 AM
The B-17, B-24, B-29 and Lancaster made no contributions to the war and were produced in such small numbers that they are not worth modeling for full cockpit. It is far more important to have every possible model of the ME-109 and every variant of the 190, including the TA-152, which was produced in such large numbers that it nearly won the war.

jasonbirder
02-24-2007, 01:46 AM
If the B17 was in the game...what would you do with it?

Sergio_101
02-24-2007, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by NekoReaperman:
Because the airplane did no good in WW2, and oleg hates america.

I agree 100%

Sergio

fighter_966
02-24-2007, 02:06 AM
Hi Sergio long time no seen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stansdds
02-24-2007, 06:29 AM
Because the B-17, B-24, Lancaster and the B-29 did not fight on the Eastern front. Now I'm in before the lock. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FPSOLKOR
02-24-2007, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by stansdds:
Because the B-17, B-24, Lancaster and the B-29 did not fight on the Eastern front. Now I'm in before the lock. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
At least 1 B-17 and 1 B-24 flew in regular BAP (That's Eastern front)... I even have photo's...

Choctaw111
02-24-2007, 06:57 AM
Now for the real answer. It is not just the pits that need to be modeled. It is every gun station as well and would take an incredible amount of resources to accomplish. No one, even third party, has done this that I know of. So many people want heavies to fly but none of the talent out there has done the internals fully. Oleg and team have been working on other things for quite some time now.

VaporBlast
02-24-2007, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
The B-17, B-24, B-29 and Lancaster made no contributions to the war and were produced in such small numbers that they are not worth modeling for full cockpit. It is far more important to have every possible model of the ME-109 and every variant of the 190, including the TA-152, which was produced in such large numbers that it nearly won the war.

Best laugh I had in days.... thx http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-24-2007, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by CasperVF103:
Why can we not fly the B17. Drink Bud Dry

Vipez-
02-24-2007, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by CasperVF103:
Why can we not fly the B17.

http://www.kerrolisaa.com/i/1/5849.jpg

boxmike
02-24-2007, 03:03 PM
Went blind shopping last week and found Wayward Design/MicroProse's 'B-17 Flying Fortress: The Mighty Eighth' for a few €s. Olde(no great armadas) but sooo deeep, and still you can just stand aside watching AI do the work. With good audio that flak scares one off.
Give IL2FB some western 4-eng and see the forum blossom with myriad of inquiries and debates about handling them...Hang on... that's why forums exist,eh?

Rgds,
- box

Xiolablu3
02-24-2007, 04:16 PM
The time and resources it would take to implement a B17 would equal about 3 WW2 fighters.

Also, in the sizes of the maps we have, 2 engined MEdiums are quite sufficient. Its not like we are flying 1000 miles and dropping the bombs from 10,000m up.

Use the B25,Ju88,H8K,He111,A20

rugame
02-24-2007, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
Now for the real answer. It is not just the pits that need to be modeled. It is every gun station as well and would take an incredible amount of resources to accomplish. No one, even third party, has done this that I know of. So many people want heavies to fly but none of the talent out there has done the internals fully. Oleg and team have been working on other things for quite some time now.

So explain the B29 than?

Taylortony
02-24-2007, 06:05 PM
There are several reasons from licencing issues through to complexity as to wht it was never done, but in some games you can fly it externally, control its engines U/C flaps etc and bomb......... but as said it is all from outside the plane

Choctaw111
02-24-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by rugame:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
Now for the real answer. It is not just the pits that need to be modeled. It is every gun station as well and would take an incredible amount of resources to accomplish. No one, even third party, has done this that I know of. So many people want heavies to fly but none of the talent out there has done the internals fully. Oleg and team have been working on other things for quite some time now.

So explain the B29 than? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure I understand your post. We have the B29 AND the B17 and NEITHER of them are flyable because of the time and effort it would take to implement the pits and gunner stations. Oleg and his team have been focusing on BoB for quite a while now and cannot even entertain the idea of doing this. Also keep in mind that 3rd party projects must be up to Olegs standards to be included.

Monterey13
02-24-2007, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
The B-17, B-24, B-29 and Lancaster made no contributions to the war and were produced in such small numbers that they are not worth modeling for full cockpit. It is far more important to have every possible model of the ME-109 and every variant of the 190, including the TA-152, which was produced in such large numbers that it nearly won the war.


????????????????????????????????????????????

Ever hear of the Memphis Belle? Ask any German, I'm sure they have.

Monterey13
02-24-2007, 06:39 PM
The BELLE shot down eight enemy fighters, probably destroyed five others, and damaged at least a dozen more. She dropped more than 60 tons of bombs over Germany, France and Belgium. During her 25 missions she flew 148 hours, 50 minutes, and covered more than 20,000 combat miles. She is the only B-17 to have her own file in the Air Force Film Depository.

Monterey13
02-24-2007, 06:57 PM
The 25 Missions of the B-29 DAUNTLESS DOTTY (Commanded by Robert Morgan)

1944

1. Oct 28 Truk 6. Nov 24 TOKYO* 11. Dec 27 Tokyo

2. Oct 30 Truk 7. Nov 27 Tokyo

3. Nov 5 Iwo Jima 8. Dec 3 Tokyo

4. Nov 6 Iwo Jima 9. Dec 8 Iwo Jima

5. Nov 10 Tokyo 10. Dec 18 Nagoya

1945

12 Jan 10 Sea Search 17. Feb 25 Tokyo 22. Mar 27 Kyusha

13. Jan 27 Tokyo 18. Mar 9 Tokyo** 23. Mar 30 Nagoya

14. Feb 4 Kobe 19. Mar 13 Osaka 24. Apr 1 Tokyo

15. Feb 15 Nagoya 20. Mar 16 Kobe 25. Apr 3 Tachikawa (Recon Flight)

16. Feb 19 Tokyo 21 Mar 24 Nagoya

* 1st B-29 bombing raid on Tokyo since Doolittle's B-25 raid in April 1942.

** 1st B-29, night, low altitude, fire bomb raid on Tokyo

Monterey13
02-24-2007, 07:02 PM
The U.S. Air Force employed the giant, four-engined Consolidated Aircraft B-24 bomber in every combat theater during World War II, from Europe to the Pacific Ocean to North Africa. Because of the B-24's great range"2,850 miles"it was particularly suited for long missions over the Pacific. Fully loaded, a B-24 could carry more than four tons of bombs.

berg417448
02-24-2007, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Monterey13:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
The B-17, B-24, B-29 and Lancaster made no contributions to the war and were produced in such small numbers that they are not worth modeling for full cockpit. It is far more important to have every possible model of the ME-109 and every variant of the 190, including the TA-152, which was produced in such large numbers that it nearly won the war.


????????????????????????????????????????????

Ever hear of the Memphis Belle? Ask any German, I'm sure they have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Uh...I guess that you missed the fact that he was being sarcastic?

carguy_
02-24-2007, 07:06 PM
Cannot help but wonder who ppl rather die in a 4 engined bomber rather than in all other flyables we have now.

The main reason is ofcourse lack of resources BUT at least try to imagine a typical online coop with it.Flyin @6000m for like 15minutes then you meet some 109s and go down.

Flying against people that actually know how to fly German planes and taking off with less than 6:1 number advantage slightly alters things.

Monterey13
02-24-2007, 07:08 PM
The Lancaster soon became Britain's most successful strategic bomber of the Second World War. The demand was so great that A. V. Roe & Company could not cope and Austin Motors, Vickers-Armstrong and Armstrong-Whitworth also began producing the plane. Over the next five years a total of 7,377 aircraft were built.

In 1943 A. V. Roe & Company introduced the Avro Lancaster Mk II. The new aircraft, with its Bristol Hercules engine, was slower than the original version, but importantly now had a range of 2,250 miles (3,620 km). The company also built the Lancaster Mk IB Special that had modified bomb-bays that enabled it to carry 10 ton bombs such as the Grand Slam.

During the war Lancasters carried out a total of 156,000 missions and dropped 608,612 tons of bombs. This was double what the Handley Page Halifax, the other major bomber used by the Royal Air Force achieved. In the four years of combat service 3,249 Lancasters were lost in action and another 487 were destroyed or damaged while on the ground. Only 24 Lancasters completed more than 100 successful missions.



That should cover his misinformed post.

StellarRat
02-24-2007, 08:21 PM
Earth to Monterey13! Do you read me? Hellllooooo? You can quit cutting and pasting from the internet now and read this.

Let me put this simply, for your benefit: If you don't have any American or British heavy bombers in the the game you are probably missing 33% to 50% of the air war in WW II, depending on who you ask. For the entire life of the this sim I've been unable to understand why we can every frickin fighter known to man and it's variants, and not one of the Allied heavy bombers. I would have paid the full price for the 1946 expansion to have just one of these bombers full cockpit and nothing else. I'm done with this topic now.

jarink
02-24-2007, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The time and resources it would take to implement a B17 would equal about 3 WW2 fighters.

Judging by the number of responses in the recent "If you could add 5 planes into the sim..." thread, there's a lot of people who would be willing to get a flyable B-17 (or B-24, Lancaster, etc.) instead of 3 more fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Personally, I think it would take quite a bit more than simply cockpit/gun station work. Level bombing in the game is very generic and it would take some work to make a fairly realistic Norden. There is also the very real issue of the IL2 engine simply not being able to handle a typical combat box of bombers without bringing all but the highest-end PCs to their knees. Flying a B-17 in small (less than 20 plane) formations would be suicide unless there were only 2-3 enemy fighters about.

If these issues could be resolved in SoW, (and the mass formation problem may very well be from the start for BoB) I think Oleg would be a fool not to include a B-17 at some point (or let a 3rd party handle it). There's just too much customer demand for the heavies to ignore them.

Monterey13
02-24-2007, 09:50 PM
I recognized the sarcasm after the fact. My bad.

As a bomber pilot, I am just a little sore that we don't have more of them to choose from.

My apologies.
S!

rugame
02-25-2007, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rugame:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
Now for the real answer. It is not just the pits that need to be modeled. It is every gun station as well and would take an incredible amount of resources to accomplish. No one, even third party, has done this that I know of. So many people want heavies to fly but none of the talent out there has done the internals fully. Oleg and team have been working on other things for quite some time now.

So explain the B29 than? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure I understand your post. We have the B29 AND the B17 and NEITHER of them are flyable because of the time and effort it would take to implement the pits and gunner stations. Oleg and his team have been focusing on BoB for quite a while now and cannot even entertain the idea of doing this. Also keep in mind that 3rd party projects must be up to Olegs standards to be included. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, i should have explained myslelf better..A B29 was virtually completed by a 3rd party (plane eater i think) and then just disappeared. i doubt you could still find the link to the pics. It was an absolute travisty that it was not included..


B29 - victim to Olegs whim.

FennecP
02-25-2007, 02:32 AM
Want B-17 cockpit?

Give me seamless photo reference of all stations (highres enough to see all text!), with schematics (internal ones, not exterior 3-views!), and $15,000. I'll consider it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

But seriously, I'm surprised B-17 hasn't been made, when other bombers have. Looks like B-17 fans are all whine and no modeler.

But don't worry, it's still ok to demand things so long as you have $50 in your pocket.

GAU-8
02-25-2007, 02:50 AM
ahhhh, new best dead horse kickin upheaval http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

besides all the other mumbo jumbo....there ARE those of us on this sim who DID (and still do) fly the B-17's online at 8-9 K.and were/are GOOD at hitting targets.

even when faced with the "odds" of experten 109/190 qeen killers, we still flew the slow lumbering climb up, and over to target. again and again. the challenge was great. the excitement was great. the memories are great.

fighter jocks now matter how "teamed orientated" are still SINGLE operators. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif REAL teamwork comes with the heavy bombers and multistationed crew http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif THATS TEAMWORK!

step off the highhorse ...and fly external, close formation heavy bombing at 10 k. suffering hich casualty rates...and still complete the mission. fending off the enemy, and wondering why our "friendlies" love to "remora" just under our bellies so that they wont get hit, as our turret gunner guys do the work. and you single cockpit junkies say "its boring" "no action"

haahahahaa .... is that all fighter jocks do? chew gum and talk smack? all alone in your cockpit..its not an "us" a "we" or even a "team" no matter how many you fly together. while you twist and turned and dance around teh flack, we headstrong right into it. puzzies! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif awwwww hell. you get hit in one engine, you fall out of the sky!!!http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif ...funny we dont have that problem. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

GAU-8
380TH BG

(all in fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Sergio_101
02-25-2007, 04:09 AM
At short range, as most of our maps are, a B-17
becomes a truly heavy bomber.
It's maximum bomb load is beat by only three
operational Allied bombers.
B-29, B-32 and the "Grand Slam" mod for the Lancaster.

as was covered in a eariler thread a late B-1F
or early B-17G could be loaded with over 20,000 lbs
of bombs with externals!
17,800 lbs internal only.

Truth is the B-17 was rarely used in it's original
intended role, and was rarely used as a heavy
bomber.
The US Navy did use the B-17 in it's original
role as a long range maritime recon bomber!

Boeing's Model 299 (B-17) was primarily used as
a long range meduim bomber.

Sergio

Hoatee
02-25-2007, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CasperVF103:
Why can we not fly the B17.

http://www.kerrolisaa.com/i/1/5849.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soap?