ok... who switched my B-17's armour for papier maché?

[beaker126]

Originally Posted by FOZ_1983

Yes the B17 carries more bombs and does more damage, but the arado flies faster and can bomb a target quicker and with more frequency.

Actually the thing turns like a pig in molasses, I find it takes awhile to turn back to my target. I can get more bombs on the ground in shorter time using any thing else. It may just be me, but I found it to be quite a let down. On another note, Is that for sure picture of B-17 in Japenese paint? The ventral turret looks a little weird, almost like the "dustbin" on the bottom of an He-111. Also, it looks like a very early model, it doesn't even have the MGs mounted in the side of the nose for the navigator and bombardier. Not trying to nit pick, it just looks odd.

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by beaker126

Actually the thing turns like a pig in molasses, I find it takes awhile to turn back to my target. I can get more bombs on the ground in shorter time using any thing else. It may just be me, but I found it to be quite a let down. On another note, Is that for sure picture of B-17 in Japenese paint? The ventral turret looks a little weird, almost like the "dustbin" on the bottom of an He-111. Also, it looks like a very early model, it doesn't even have the MGs mounted in the side of the nose for the navigator and bombardier. Not trying to nit pick, it just looks odd.

Its way quicker than anything else at dropping bombs. Maybe you are concentrating on destroying one target too much or flying too low. If you drop on multiple targets you will be out of bombs on just one or two passes and then crash into the last target in the row

[FOZ_1983]

Originally Posted by beaker126

Actually the thing turns like a pig in molasses, I find it takes awhile to turn back to my target. I can get more bombs on the ground in shorter time using any thing else. It may just be me, but I found it to be quite a let down. On another note, Is that for sure picture of B-17 in Japenese paint? The ventral turret looks a little weird, almost like the "dustbin" on the bottom of an He-111. Also, it looks like a very early model, it doesn't even have the MGs mounted in the side of the nose for the navigator and bombardier. Not trying to nit pick, it just looks odd.

One of the very earlies i believe, if you look closer then you will notice the tail fin is shaped like the early model and also the lack of a rear gunner position. Not sure where it was captured.

[House MD 221B]

Originally Posted by FOZ_1983

One of the very earlies i believe, if you look closer then you will notice the tail fin is shaped like the early model and also the lack of a rear gunner position. Not sure where it was captured.

yes it is a YB-17



note the ball turret "dust bin" and the tear drop waist turrets as well as the distinctive ugly tail fin

The design competition for a 'Multi-engined' bomber starting in 1934 ( at the time, 'Multi-engined' meant a twin, but Boeing thought differently ). Roll out ceremony of the Boeing 299 was 17th July 1935, with the first flight 28th. The prototype was destroyed in a take off crash during the Army competition resulting in the B-18 Bolo winning the contract. The crash was caused by the aircrew failing to remove the flying control gust locks. As a result, the B-17 became the first aircraft to have a pre-flight check list.

However, the army had been sufficiently impressed with the design and ordered 13 in service prototypes which became known as the YB-17 entering service in 1937. This put the B-17 in operation while the RAF was flying Whitleys, Wellingtons and Hampdens!!!

http://www.hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?t=13988

[Voyager]

Well it also looks very much like the B-17D we've got in the PC Il-2. In fact, given the B-17 descriptions from Joe Baugher's site, ( main, B-17) it sounds like it is a C or D version, given that the YB-17 is supposed to have a greenhouse turret in the nose, and it's the side gunner positions appear to be flush instead of in blisters. Can't tell if it would be a C or a D though.

On a side note, if it is required to keep the B-17 balanced, downgrading it to the D model might be viable. The D model topped out at about 4000lbs of bombs, instead of the 8000-18000 that later models could carry. It's also a 1941 plane, so it can be used in early war scenarios.

[House MD 221B]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Well it also looks very much like the B-17D we've got in the PC Il-2. In fact, given the B-17 descriptions from Joe Baugher's site, ( main, B-17) it sounds like it is a C or D version, given that the YB-17 is supposed to have a greenhouse turret in the nose, and it's the side gunner positions appear to be flush instead of in blisters. Can't tell if it would be a C or a D though.

On a side note, if it is required to keep the B-17 balanced, downgrading it to the D model might be viable. The D model topped out at about 4000lbs of bombs, instead of the 8000-18000 that later models could carry. It's also a 1941 plane, so it can be used in early war scenarios.

But the G was awesome, no-one wants to fly a D or E, even the F sucks. its not about balancing, its about getting it right, the G is just fine, it just needs fixing!

[Raw Kryptonite]

How about some fun viewing? Not making any kind of point, just plain good stuff. Another plug for Dogfights if anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4cksG7JoE8

[House MD 221B]

Awesome video!!!!!