|
|
#51
01-03-2012, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a vid of my first successful level bombing run in the Blenheim, although it may be more luck than good technique.
If you look closely in full screen @ 1080p you'll see the targets in the bombsight next to the factory. You'll also see that I'm finding it difficult to trim the thing adequately. This might be me or the notorious G940 trim adjustments. The altitude and airspeed are going up and down no matter what I do! Bombing height is 6000ft, roughly (!). 
|
|
#52
01-03-2012, 07:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dutch: Again very well done: Perhaps thats the best the real Blenheim could do, and thats certainly the exact results I have been getting. So here's the point I have been suggesting: For the amount of time spent climbing to target and attempting to line up< could we not have achieved the same results or certainly better by just going in low level high speed, and then straight on out ?? again this is mainly for the purpose to instruct those that get interested in the Blenheim ???
ATAG_Knuckles
|
|
#53
01-03-2012, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Still like to try level bombing with multi-crew though! 
|
|
#54
01-03-2012, 09:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Now, if the "high level" bombers could deal with the flak concentrations, the low level units could go after parked planes, or better yet those on the ground warming up. Jerry needs some of his own medicine methinks.
__________________
 Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov
|
|
#55
01-03-2012, 10:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This sounds good to me as shallow dive attacks are definitely more reliable.
However, I tried some low level runs last night and the flak is brutal on ATAG #1. We could easily take out AA concentrations like the one at Saint Inglevert from ~3000 feet first which would leave the field open for low level, high speed, attacks. It's a shame we don't have Wellingtons for some real high level attacks. Add a couple of Spit/Hurri pilots to draw the 109s (doesn't matter who they are, really, whoever is on the server at the time would likely be willing) and it would be even better! Last edited by jimbop; 01-03-2012 at 10:19 PM.
|
|
#56
01-03-2012, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sounds like ATAG #1 will soon be improved for bombers and Blenheims in particular so that could be a good place to get a bit more organised. See these posts on their forum.
|
|
#57
01-04-2012, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, it certainly looks realistic. It is confusing for me too, having to fly the plane and aim the bombs at the same time, but i think having a human bombardier wouldn't do much to improve things. But, i think it's cool, let me explain.
Take into account the typical human reaction time of 1 second, add some milliseconds more for the voice comms transmission and you get the idea. You're flying in multiplayer, you have your buddy guiding you to the target like they did in real life ("left, left, right, steady" etc) while you take care of flying and you are still missing  But this is the whole reason they used formations and carpet bombing in the first place, or devised more sophisticated machinery to equip bombers with  You either fly with an autopilot through the bombsight (like the LW and US bombers did), or you have a guy in a glass nose passing instructions to you. I think that might be one of the main reasons the RAF was traditionally bombing from lower altitudes. It's much easier to get accurate corrections if one guy does the whole thing, rather than two people who need to attune their reaction timings to each other. I tried the mission posted by Dutch yesterday night (i was relieved i hadn't forgotten everything ), got into the air fine, engine management was a breeze and i even made a split-S evasion after dropping the eggs at +9 boost, skimming the waves back across the channel at a constant +4.5 boost, temps steady at 190-210 degrees and no engine trouble whatsoever. But i still missed the target by a couple hundred meters.I came in at 5000 feet, aligned the best i could (read: paused and use ctrl-F2 to locate the target's exact location) and i still had to do a few last moment corrections, which threw off my aim. However, if i had a wingman on my 8 o'clock position, he would have hit squarely on those tanks I'm not exactly disappointed here, i think it's awesome that we'll have to use just a dash of historical tactics and operational doctrines to be successful. I mean, these crates were not meant for lone-wolfing it like we do and it's good that the sim reflects the limitations if we do: either go low and risk the flak, or go high and risk a miss. Plus i think i did really well for a first try after such a lengthy absence, didn't blow any engines and got a near miss, so i was all the more excited about the whole thing I think the trick is to get a few people from the same timezone, get some practice in so that they can all hit within 500m of the target, then get flying in vics of three and go in at 5000ft or so. By comparison, when i was testing the 111 i made an autopilot assisted run from an altitude of 3km (approx. 10000 feet). Comparing with last night's Blenheim test, i can say that the 111 hits as close as, if not closer than, the Blenheim but at double the altitude. Both of these tests are a "first run" test, i didn't practice before. So, technology does make a difference and if its lacking, different tactics have to be used  I really like the whole "low to medium altitude bombers" vibe and all the dangerous aura with the flak and all, that's why i like the Blenheim. However, i think that if the gyrocompass on the 88 is fixed to enable use of its autopilot i might switch to blue again, as i have a few nifty ideas for that one too: approach the target for a normal, level drop, if engaged by fighters use dive bombing instead and escape like a boss, otherwise stay high and level bomb I think the only thing we need for the bombers in general (regardless of whether they have autopilots or not) is an "unstable level stabilizer": something that will keep the plane level like it did back in IL2, but not rock solid level, something that is not a gaming contraption/feature but a more refined solution. Imagine level stab, just not on rails like it used to be. When you would engage it the plane would fly roughly level, still get shaken up by nearby flak explosions and (best part of all), you would use three keys for left/right/steady commands, with a bit of a built-in delay or "fuzziness" in the motion to simulate a human being doing the piloting. This way we kill three birds with one stone 1) all bombers can now level bomb with relative ease without having to look for human crew members 2) we simulate a bombardier guiding the pilot to the target, like it used to be 3) the autopilot capable bombers with gyro-stabilized bombsights are still more accurate like they historically were, it's just that the non-AP bombers can also bomb with some ease in-game
|
|
#58
01-04-2012, 03:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I am undecided about the horizontal stabilizer. It is certainly possible to trim so you get very steady flight right now. The hardest thing (which a stabilizer would remove) is keeping one eye on the horizon and the other on the target. My initial gripe with the absence of the horizontal stabilizer (i.e. that you were not expected to fly the plane at the same time) is somewhat lessened with the realisation that being able to make accurate corrections from the bombardier's position is actually a huge advantage. It would be interesting to see statistics of how accurate Blenheim bombing runs were IRL. I wouldn't be surprised if we were already more accurate. I tend to lower my view on the way in so that the gap between the top of the screen and horizon is reduced. It allows easier estimation of divergence from true horizontal. If you click on the pic and look at the full size version of below you can see that the inactive alpha of my single-line high chat window provides a good point of reference at the level of the black pencil line at top left. 
|
|
#59
01-04-2012, 07:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
and the Blenheim was 'known' for its not very accurate bombing because of its bombbaydoor system. The weight of the bombs opened the doors, there was no manual dooropening before release possible. And this caused some kind of noncalculateable delay.
|
|
#60
01-18-2012, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow some great info here. I got airborne for the first time in the Blenheim last night on the Cross Country quick mission.
Some noob notes: Hard to turn while on ground. I had full rudder and trim to keep it straight down the runway. I cooked one engine after lowering the cowl flaps to 50% for about 5 seconds...I had to fly with them full open all the time so keep the engines cool. Surely I was doing something wrong...I think it was me flying with a 80% fine prop pitch. Seems most of you guys fly coarse pitch, that is correct? I'll try that next time. And also I probably didn't allow that much warmup time.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
