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

[House MD 221B]

seriously.... I wanna know... they could sustain MASSIVE amounts of damage, they've landed without tails, without nose cones, without 3 out of the 4 engines.


so why oh why does it fall apart as soon as a few bullets clip it.

I've tried arcade, realistic, AND simulator, and on all 3 its punishment threshold is that of a scared anaemic vole!

the bomb loads are awesome, the flight model is perfect, the model is great, the gunning turrets are great (APART from the fact the upper turret cant face forwards and neither the upper or ball turrets can shoot vertically up or down)

this stinks of lazyness on the developer's part... IL-2 on the PC was all about realism and accuracy... did they think we wouldn't notice? what the hell.

and i'm not just talking about this, there are SO many aspects of the game that just reek of "5 to 5 on a friday"... IL-2 was a pillar of the PC flight sim world, it was brilliant to the last detail... did they think that PC users dont own consoles? that we wouldnt catch on?

but back to the B-17... please PLEASE as part of DLC turn it into the plane it was manufactured to be... not a card-board cutout replica. and PLEASE for the love of god add an auto-feather option, so that as soon as 1 engine goes the entire plane doesnt instantly lose control or explode.

otherwise as MANY of you know i love this game, its beautiful, and its the best the console will probably ever see for this era of flight.

but the developers either really sold out for the publishers (ala front cover of the box) or just couldn't be bothered to produce the same level of quality for the console as they did the PC. I get there arent as many buttons, that fine, but like i said make auto-feather etc. we wouldnt mind automated systems, so long as they are there to begin with.

anyway rant over.... im understandably pissed that after 8 hours of strike matches the ONE plane i wanted is less than the historic aircraft it's meant to be. Just needed to vent, and hopefully a Dev will see it and perhaps consider some options for improvement.

[Marchochias]

Yeah, the damage models can be a bit crazy. Even on Simulator, a few shots from a 7.62mm machine gun can bring down He 111s, and as you say, B-17s.

Whereas other aircraft like the IL-2 can take 30 mm rounds almost indefinitely.

Hopefully they fix it up with patches.

[PantherAttack2]

Really?

I've pumped a ton of lead into a B-17 with my Hurricane's 12 machine guns and it wasn't close to falling out of the sky.

[Ancient Seraph]

Can you imagine how many complaints there would be when the B17 was invincible as well? :rolleyes:

[P-51]

probably hit your engines! That's how i take them down, that and diving from above in the blind spot :D

[MorgothNL]

The B-17 can take a lot more punishment then most other bombers in the game (when hitting the same spots on different bombers). But yeah, it could take way more punishment. But I gues that is balancing. I think it is 'ok' like this, it is pretty hard to take down, has a lot of guns,and a huge payload.

Making it even harder to take down would ruin the game by making the B-17 even more overpowered than it allready is. Just this night, I was in a strike game 4 vs 4. They had 2 b-17 and a blenheim (and a fighter). We had 3 A-20G's. our 700 tickets were gone within 5 mins, and they still had 530.

If you would ask me if they should change the B-17, then yes, but for the sake of gameplay I would say it should be nerfed.

[mattd27]

The other day I took down a B-17 with a 109 easily. I was so surprised as I thought it was going to be impossible, but me and another pilot ganged up on him and he never scored the whole flight!

[mdbuehler]

I'd been hearing how tough there were too from a few other threads, and the first time I came across one in Strike I downed it three times that game without too much trouble. Second time out he had a fighter escort, then it got tricky :) All in all, it didn't seem any harder or easier to shoot down.

[House MD 221B]

The auto-gunners suck, as with all auto-gunning in the game, thats fine, manual guns and they start to be effective, so yes if a couple of people gang up on a B-17 as they SHOULD then yes fair play no problem it should go down unless its a very good gunner or a couple of very bad fighter pilots.

im not saying it should be invincible, but taking out 1 engine doesnt = game over.

yes it is very heavily over-powered compared to ANYTHING else in the game, but maybe if they hadn't screwed over other aircraft as well instead of making quality damage models then it wouldnt be an issue.

and even if they come one at a time, if im lucky i can down 2 before the damage is so severe my elevators become USELESS.

and i know who hit me where, and when, and in what quantities, its not just a good engine shot, its a weak plane.

on the whole its a great plane it looks great it handles like a dream, its just got the tensile strength of freshly used public bathroom toilet paper.

and the gunner positions dont have the mobile range they should have, its laziness and shamefully baring in mind the tenants that they have upheld previously.

Im curious as to what made them slack off on this.

[Xx RTEK xX]

Yeah the damage numbers on this game suck. They really need to go back and fix some things.

Especially that B-17. I put a couple rounds into one online, and it went down.

[guiltyspark]

Yeah the damage numbers on this game suck. They really need to go back and fix some things.

Especially that B-17. I put a couple rounds into one online, and it went down.

its better then not being able to be shoot it down at all

[House MD 221B]

its better then not being able to be shoot it down at all

only if you suck as a fighter pilot, there shouldn't be exceptions for people who don't know how to shoot right... LEARN.

nerfing plane armour to help idiots is not a noble cause for a destruction of a plane's stats.

learn the planes weak speaks and shoot right, you shouldn't be able to just clip a plane like that and it go down.

I suck as a fighter pilot, i get it, im ok with it, i AM however a good bomber pilot, and i should not be penalised for being a good bomber pilot and gunner, because other people aren't good at flying fighters either.

[Kirill Yudintsev]

BTW
B-17 wasn't very armoured plane, in fact.
It can take lots of damage and even land without 1\3 of wing surface, 2 from 4 engines sometimes and other outstanding things.
But the best armour of it were gunners and that B-17 most times flew in super formations with lots of planes - that means tons of lead from all their gunners.
B-17 usually flew in amounts like 50 to one enemy fighter.

So it was very good plane and very safe as a bomber.

But not more.
Common bomber had 6 flights on enemy territory during WWII (while common fighter had 50 flights, and common attacker -11).
You can find in luftwaffe pilots diaries that it was real challenge - to come close enough to attack B-17 vitals - engines, fuel tanks, pilots. And they selm did it. But when they did it - B-17 became very vulnerable. May be less then other heavy bombers, but enough.
Also Korean war showed even more - B-29 (not B-17 but even greater bombers) were very easy targets for Soviet MiG-15 (their 37mm and 2x23mm cannons are not much better then cannons of world war II) - just because MiG-15 were much faster them fighters of WWII and can get much closer and then get away.

So, even if B-17 in game are not as good as they were in damage they can take (it can be - we didn't test it enough for reasons above) the problem is deeper - game situations are not like '100 B-17 against 16 109'. Not even close to.

PS I've checked it. Yes, you right we have something incorrect in B-17 Damage model. The main thing is that b-17 have to be able to take more damage on wing and tail surfaces.
Vitals (like engines and fuels) seem to be correct.
But inaccuracies are seem to be in 30% range (have to check more). And it is much harder to shoot down B-17 by damaging it surfaces then by destroying it's engines\pilots and so on, even occasionally.
Cannot promise that will be updated in this title update (guess why;).

[House MD 221B]

Thanks Kirill.

I really appreciate you taking the time to make a post.

That sounds fantastic and yes i appreciate the game ratio is VASTLY different to RL scenarios :)

do you have any comments on the turret issues? or perhaps an auto-feather system?

i'd love to see it worked on, but i understand it wont be in the next update, you guys must be snowed under with cockpits etc. etc.

I recognise there's hundreds if not thousands of various requests, so thank you again for taking the time to respond to this one.

[FOZ_1983]

ALOT of elements in this game sucks. For £40 im allowed to be selfish. Or to put that £40 another way.... a full days work!!

The B17 takes far to long to unlock as it is...then its ridiculously weak and some guns dont fire where they should be able to, the P51... inaccurate.

The whole thing feels shoddy and like its been rushed.

The BoB campaign flying the spitfire Mk2...... why?? really?? realistically HOW HARD can it be to just get rid of the 2 cannons and also change the camo colour? its a piece of piss. I know im sounding like a selfish arrogant nasty little twat with all this but after speaking with a few of the forum regulars (xbox live players) on live, we all agreed that some things just didnt add up at all.

I for one absolutely love the game and can look past all these huge errors, i just feel slightly let down.

Give me grief and flame me all you want, i have broad shoulders i can take it. Mayve i deserve it, but as lnog as i got my 2 cents in, then i will happily take the shit im probably about to recieve.

[MorgothNL]

ALOT of elements in this game sucks. And whats more is the fact that anton and co were ever present upto the release of the game and shortly after, but not now!! granted they are having hols etc, they deserve it. But some input from someone would be nice. Anyone!! selfish of me i know, but to be quite frank i dont care. For £40 im allowed to be selfish. Or to put that £40 another way.... a full days work!!

The B17 takes far to long to unlock as it is...then its ridiculously weak and some guns dont fire where they should be able to, the P51... inaccurate.

The whole thing feels shoddy and like its been rushed.

The BoB campaign flying the spitfire Mk2...... why?? really?? realistically HOW HARD can it be to just get rid of the 2 cannons and also change the camo colour? its a piece of piss. I know im sounding like a selfish arrogant nasty little twat with all this but after speaking with a few of the forum regulars (xbox live players) on live, we all agreed that some things just didnt add up at all.

I for one absolutely love the game and can look past all these huge errors, i just feel slightly let down.

Give me grief and flame me all you want, i have broad shoulders i can take it. Mayve i deserve it, but as lnog as i got my 2 cents in, then i will happily take the shit im probably about to recieve.


not going to flame you, even though a few things are a bit over the top.
The game is not perfect no, but the title update is going to make a lot of things right. You do realise this right?

I do agree that I think it is kind of strange that anton & co were so present here untill the release...and then nothing.

We just have to wait for the title update, to get really moneys worth. I can live with it ;), if this game is fixed, it will be the best game ever, and I wouldnt even mind paying double for it

[FOZ_1983]

I realised some of my errors and edited my post, but you were quick to the reply lol. All credit to you.

I look forward to the title update, i know (hope) it will fix many issues that plague this game. It just seems so "odd" in some areas.

For example.... this game is part of the IL2 franchise, and we all know exactly how authentic and serious it is. Its amazing!! where as say... blazing angels.... isnt authentic and is just a bog standard arcade shooter, YET blazing angels has you flying a spitMk1 in the battle of britain, like you should be! so why not IL2? its surely not that hard to fix. And no P51 cockpit? how hard can that be to put in their really? its ok blaming limits with cash etc, if thats the case then why not just use the cockpit from the P51B (thats not a P51B), since it looks closer to the D cockpit than the current one?

It just seems "fishy" that some of these thnigs have been missed out or over looked.

All the above aside.... i do truly love the game and think its incredible. The bst flying sim on console by far.

[Marchochias]

Really?

I've pumped a ton of lead into a B-17 with my Hurricane's 12 machine guns and it wasn't close to falling out of the sky.

To be fair, those Hurricane guns take forever to kill anything. I tried flying perfectly straight and level in Simulator to let a friend of mine try to shoot me down with the machine guns....they took so long that he actually used a rocket instead :D

[Steyr_amr]

Sort of agree with this, have played games where a single B-17 ended the whole show in minutes. However also remember fighting against a team with 2 fortresses skillfully piloted in the Emil and getting 6 kills on them. I was rather impressed with this (by my own meagre standards), however they still won the game.

Also remember watching guncam footage of a Zerstorer pumping cannon fire into the engine nacelles and wingroots of a B-17 from 6oclock, massive puffs, flashes and even chunks of airfame coming off it and still it plodded along until the 110 had to duck under it to avoid a collision.

Seems as though if they up-gun and up-armour the B-17 they need to reduce it's bombload to maintain balance.

Has anyone been using 262's against them... might be a thought...

[Vulcan607]

I was playing a strike match t`other day in which i in my spit mk2 played against 2 b-17 and got torn apart by duel machine guns, yet them suffering little damage from my cannons.

[Voyager]

Well, from a balance standpoint, it sort of seems to me you're screwed when you're trying to balance a side that built heavy bombers against a side that just didn't. If you really want to balance bomber vrs bomber missions then you really have to limit the Allies to medium bombers, just the A-10 and B-25, etc, and even there, the Germans really stopped seriously developing bombers after around 1941-42.

My thought would be, bring in the B-25, have it unlock with the B-17, and then limit heavy bombers to asymmetric scenarios built to handle them.

[House MD 221B]

Seems as though if they up-gun and up-armour the B-17 they need to reduce it's bombload to maintain balance.

No you're missing the point, its about getting it RIGHT, not shifting stuff to suit niceties... either your a company who makes realistic era flight sims, or your a company that slack off and cant be bothered to get it right. the admins have proved they recognise their mistakes and want to get them right. so balancing ruins games, nerfing things because it might be DIFFICULT for others...

if you take up an emil or spit mk II against a B-17 you're GOING to LOSE! it would have lost then it SHOULD lose now, which is why funnily enough Emils and Spitfires didnt get sent up against B-17s, 262s 163's Gustakvs, K-10s, FW 190s got sent up against them.

if you want to use an Emil or spit mk II, set the server to pre-41 planes only.

but dont nerf other planes e.g. 1945 planes, because you dont stand a chance in your 1940's plane.

[House MD 221B]

Well, from a balance standpoint, it sort of seems to me you're screwed when you're trying to balance a side that built heavy bombers against a side that just didn't. If you really want to balance bomber vrs bomber missions then you really have to limit the Allies to medium bombers, just the A-10 and B-25, etc, and even there, the Germans really stopped seriously developing bombers after around 1941-42.

My thought would be, bring in the B-25, have it unlock with the B-17, and then limit heavy bombers to asymmetric scenarios built to handle them.

nice idea apart from the fact that AGAIN one team shouldnt have something because the other team doesnt have the SAME... also last time i checked you could fly any nationality plane, so if one team has a B17, and the othe team cares, THEY can take a B-17.

and if u are playing one team allies one team axis (which would be cool) that is why the axis get the Arado, the 262, and the 163. 4 jet aircraft to the allies 0 jet aircraft (oh theres also the He-16something)

so the axis get interceptors and a JET BOMBER, and the allies get the B-17. but all of that doesnt matter when ANYONE can fly ANYTHING. so balancing again does NOT count as a valid reason to RUIN a perfectly good plane.

[Steyr_amr]

No you're missing the point, its about getting it RIGHT, not shifting stuff to suit niceties... either your a company who makes realistic era flight sims, or your a company that slack off and cant be bothered to get it right. the admins have proved they recognise their mistakes and want to get them right. so balancing ruins games, nerfing things because it might be DIFFICULT for others...

if you take up an emil or spit mk II against a B-17 you're GOING to LOSE! it would have lost then it SHOULD lose now, which is why funnily enough Emils and Spitfires didnt get sent up against B-17s, 262s 163's Gustakvs, K-10s, FW 190s got sent up against them.

if you want to use an Emil or spit mk II, set the server to pre-41 planes only.

but dont nerf other planes e.g. 1945 planes, because you dont stand a chance in your 1940's plane.

I do agree, I adored IL2 on the PC's authenticity, and share most people's grievances on this forum that Birds of Prey needs to move more in that direction. I say beef up the fortresses, give me R4M's for the 262 and let's have at it. I believe 6 B-17's falling to me in an Emil is somewhat ridiculous, as I was only flying it to unlock the H-3 and wasn't expecting it to be in any way effective against late war aircraft.

The last thing I'd want to see is Birds of Prey go down the, dare I say it, Halo 3 route. I remember playing that and realising that everything, the big walking machine, the alien tank, the Hunter aliens, they all have "weak spots" presumably to balance the multiplayer, which is something I loathe.

I'm sorry if this has gone somewhat off topic, and I'm also sorry i just admitted I used to play Halo, the shame...

[Vulcan607]

No you're missing the point, its about getting it RIGHT, not shifting stuff to suit niceties... either your a company who makes realistic era flight sims, or your a company that slack off and cant be bothered to get it right. the admins have proved they recognise their mistakes and want to get them right. so balancing ruins games, nerfing things because it might be DIFFICULT for others...

if you take up an emil or spit mk II against a B-17 you're GOING to LOSE! it would have lost then it SHOULD lose now, which is why funnily enough Emils and Spitfires didnt get sent up against B-17s, 262s 163's Gustakvs, K-10s, FW 190s got sent up against them.

if you want to use an Emil or spit mk II, set the server to pre-41 planes only.

but dont nerf other planes e.g. 1945 planes, because you dont stand a chance in your 1940's plane.

I take it your refering to my previous post, if not the point still stands anyway, Cannon shells would do more damage regardless of age.

which is why funnily enough Emils and Spitfires didnt get sent up against B-17s

there were incidents of b-17s being captured and being flown against their previous owners.

[House MD 221B]

I take it your refering to my previous post, if not the point still stands anyway, Cannon shells would do more damage regardless of age.

which is why funnily enough Emils and Spitfires didnt get sent up against B-17s

there were incidents of b-17s being captured and being flown against their previous owners.

you're quit right Wolfhound was the first B-17 captured repaired and flown by the Luftwaffe. strangely looks quite cool in german paintscheme.

and yes cannon shells should do more damage, BUT the B-17 is weak as tin foil. and the control surfaces (as Kirill mentioned) could take ALOT more pounding, yes a cannon round rattling around in an engine should do serious damage, but taking out 1 engine doesnt = explode.

but id love to hear an example where a spitfire MkII went up against a german captured B-17 or Do-200 as they called it.

[haitch40]

you're quit right Wolfhound was the first B-17 captured repaired and flown by the Luftwaffe. strangely looks quite cool in german paintscheme.

and yes cannon shells should do more damage, BUT the B-17 is weak as tin foil. and the control surfaces (as Kirill mentioned) could take ALOT more pounding, yes a cannon round rattling around in an engine should do serious damage, but taking out 1 engine doesnt = explode.

but id love to hear an example where a spitfire MkII went up against a german captured B-17 or Do-200 as they called it.

some1 find a pic of a b17 with the german paint

[Vulcan607]

BUT the B-17 is weak as tin foil. and the control surfaces (as Kirill mentioned) could take ALOT more pounding, yes a cannon round rattling around in an engine should do serious damage, but taking out 1 engine doesnt = explode.

but id love to hear an example where a spitfire MkII went up against a german captured B-17 or Do-200 as they called it.

a head on attack on a b17 only needed about 3-5 hits to destroy it and about 20 when attacking from the rear.

im now frantically racking my brain to remember where i read about the spitfire, im sure its not a figment of my imagination.....bah what was the book!

[Vulcan607]

some1 find a pic of a b17 with the german paint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:B17_kg200.jpg

[FOZ_1983]

Here you go. Thanks to vulcan for the link :D

[FOZ_1983]

Japanese markings to....

[dazz1971]

nice idea apart from the fact that AGAIN one team shouldnt have something because the other team doesnt have the SAME... also last time i checked you could fly any nationality plane, so if one team has a B17, and the othe team cares, THEY can take a B-17.

and if u are playing one team allies one team axis (which would be cool) that is why the axis get the Arado, the 262, and the 163. 4 jet aircraft to the allies 0 jet aircraft (oh theres also the He-16something)

so the axis get interceptors and a JET BOMBER, and the allies get the B-17. but all of that doesnt matter when ANYONE can fly ANYTHING. so balancing again does NOT count as a valid reason to RUIN a perfectly good plane.

nothing personal House but the second you select an arado the other team screams NO jets !!! and its usually the guys flying the b17 this was the point i was trying to get over in another thread if a team is going to use a b17 that has been beefed up to take more damage then other piolts should be allowed to use jet bomber i mean if they did up the damage on a b17 it would be game over for the other team before the game even started i mean if it could take masses of damage drop the biggist payload in the game that would make for a pretty uneven game imho

this is why i dont play strike much and in my honest opioion i dont think b17s should b in strike i think they should find another game type to use them in the war b17s fly in huge formations and basicly carpet bombed a town factory complex etc i think it would be better if there was a coop mission where you all fly b17s together in formation and have ai fighters and good flak to play against ...just a thought i remember a game for my old pc b17 flying fortress used to love playing that with me mates so dont think im bashing the b17 its one of my fav ww2 planes :-)

on a side note house have you seen SALLY B ?? i saw her at coventry airshow few years ago awsome sight :)

[House MD 221B]

nothing personal House but the second you select an arado the other team screams NO jets !!! and its usually the guys flying the b17 this was the point i was trying to get over in another thread if a team is going to use a b17 that has been beefed up to take more damage then other piolts should be allowed to use jet bomber i mean if they did up the damage on a b17 it would be game over for the other team before the game even started i mean if it could take masses of damage drop the biggist payload in the game that would make for a pretty uneven game imho

this is why i dont play strike much and in my honest opioion i dont think b17s should b in strike i think they should find another game type to use them in the war b17s fly in huge formations and basicly carpet bombed a town factory complex etc i think it would be better if there was a coop mission where you all fly b17s together in formation and have ai fighters and good flak to play against ...just a thought i remember a game for my old pc b17 flying fortress used to love playing that with me mates so dont think im bashing the b17 its one of my fav ww2 planes :-)

on a side note house have you seen SALLY B ?? i saw her at coventry airshow few years ago awsome sight :)

but the Arado can be bested by a good pilot, Jets arent the be all and end all, i dont understand why they moan, but frankly they can screw off, i pick the plane i want for the mission I want, and if someone else doesnt like it they can either shut up or leave, i paid £40 for this game and spent my time unlocking planes, so ill use whatever the hell I want, either get better at killing that particular plane, or change the setting to pre-1944 etc. etc. :)


I used to have that game to it was AWESOME if not a little buggy,

and yeah I saw Sally B at Duxford a few years back, so quiet as it came in for a landing. truly majestic.

[dazz1971]

but the Arado can be bested by a good pilot, Jets arent the be all and end all, i dont understand why they moan, but frankly they can screw off, i pick the plane i want for the mission I want, and if someone else doesnt like it they can either shut up or leave, i paid £40 for this game and spent my time unlocking planes, so ill use whatever the hell I want, either get better at killing that particular plane, or change the setting to pre-1944 etc. etc.

my thinking too screw em im gonna start using the arado more i meant at the end of the day i payed for it ill use it :)

[House MD 221B]

my thinking too screw em im gonna start using the arado more i meant at the end of the day i payed for it ill use it :)

damn right, the developers put them in there to use, its like noob tubers on FPSs, ive never done it, but i dont have a problem with others doing it, i see it as a challenge. (standing still helps cus everyone runs for it) :)

[FOZ_1983]

**** using a jet!!!!!

if i wanted to fly around in a jet bombing things and using high speed then i'd stick to playing OVER-G fighters.

I enjoy WW2 flying games, the whole idea of dogfighting or escort/intercept makes it so much more fun knowing its the man not the machine.

I for one hate people using jets in this game, but i dont hold it against them. As you say, we've all paid our hard earned cash so we have the right to use whatever plane we want :D

Seems a little unfair though that the arado is SO EASY to unlock, just complete a single missions secnario (battle of bulge?) which can be done in 15 mins. Yet the B17 takes 50 games of strike, which you must win using a bomber!! taking a hell of a long time.

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.

[beaker126]

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]

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]

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]

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

http://aerofiles.com/boe-yb17.jpg

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 (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/uscombataircraft.html), B-17 (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17.html)) 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]

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 (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/uscombataircraft.html), B-17 (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17.html)) 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!!!!!

[dazz1971]

man thats unbeliveable :o
thanks for posting great video

[birdsofmay]

i've seen a few b-17 bombers and I am amazed by the feats the plane reached but I can almost make a hole in the plating with 1 punch

yes I pressed on the plating in a musem (yes I know I shouldn't) and a dent apeared its 3mm thick at the most so bullets enter at 1 side and leave at the other side. So the armor isnt that good it just has 12 turrets well 12 guns :o

[mdbuehler]

They've flown one out of Boeing field here (it roams the country I believe) called "Aluminum Overcast". Watched it fly overhead several times on the way to work / and on the weekend. Thought it was stalking me lol :) I'm going to snag tickets next time it comes to town, you can get a flight around the area in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBWevflkX6Q

Its currently down in Texas if anybody wants to check it out. You get to roam around the plane in flight, go to the gun positions, etc. Looks like fun!

[InfiniteStates]

Awesome video - gonna have to check for more of that on YouTube. Monday work tedium could become a thing of the past :)

The makers are noobs though - they should have farmed out their smoke CGI to the IL2 devs lol.

[House MD 221B]

I HAVE to do this before I die!