Jump to content
Lugubrious

Flyable B-17?

Recommended Posts

Just wondering. I was a big fan of B-17 Queen of the Skies. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The B-17 was a piece of junk. Even the B-24 was a far superior plane. Give me a Lancaster, four times the plane the B-17 was.

 

Edited by cardboard_killer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the original question, not planned. Maybe not even possible, without more funding for the developers than they are ever likely to see. The existing game engine isn't currently up to it. For the reasons why, search for 'B-17' or 'Heavy' in thread titles...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

The B-17 was a piece of junk. Even the B-24 was a far superior plane. Give me a Lancaster, four times the plane the B-17 was.

 

 

Surely you jest. Bombload alone does not define a bomber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Personally I had a soft spot for B 24 until I saw this

Lancasters was equally cramped to get out of

do not get me wrong, but who are we to deem excellent serving warbirds

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavy bombers aren't happening. The topic is a well treaden part in these forums.....I'd, personally, love to see them even as AI so we can chew them out of the sky but even that isn't likely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Surely you jest. Bombload alone does not define a bomber.

 

Yeah, climb rate, speed and speed of production are meaningful too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

The B-17 was a piece of junk. Even the B-24 was a far superior plane. Give me a Lancaster, four times the plane the B-17 was.

 

If I wanted opinion I'd have asked for it

Move along, nothing to see here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I am not going to shoot down your idea but I will give a bit of background to why you are seeing people tell you it will not happen. One of the biggest problems when building a new aircraft is making the cockpit.  Not only go you have all those controls & instruments etc but you have to make sure that everything the pilot can see as he looks around looks OK which is not always the case with a non-flyable aircraft. They can look perfect from outside but from inside have lots of holes & gaps between sections (not sure if IL2 has this issue but CLoD did) .    Each crew position, has almost the same issue so building an aircraft with a gunner position can take almost as long as building two new fighters.  If they could have got away with not having the bombers we have then I am sure they would have skipped them.   The upcoming mosquito is not terrible because there is no gunner though the second crew member still makes it harder than a fighter.  A flyable big bomber with multiple gun positions, a complete interior from nose to tail to model and multiple ways to see any problems in the fuselage is a very big job and something they would not want to do unless they have no choice as it stops them building three or four other aircraft.    

 

So, not impossible but very unlikely.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

I am not going to shoot down your idea but I will give a bit of background to why you are seeing people tell you it will not happen. One of the biggest problems when building a new aircraft is making the cockpit.  Not only go you have all those controls & instruments etc but you have to make sure that everything the pilot can see as he looks around looks OK which is not always the case with a non-flyable aircraft. They can look perfect from outside but from inside have lots of holes & gaps between sections (not sure if IL2 has this issue but CLoD did) .    Each crew position, has almost the same issue so building an aircraft with a gunner position can take almost as long as building two new fighters.  If they could have got away with not having the bombers we have then I am sure they would have skipped them.   The upcoming mosquito is not terrible because there is no gunner though the second crew member still makes it harder than a fighter.  A flyable big bomber with multiple gun positions, a complete interior from nose to tail to model and multiple ways to see any problems in the fuselage is a very big job and something they would not want to do unless they have no choice as it stops them building three or four other aircraft.    

 

So, not impossible but very unlikely.

 

I agree with everything you posted but the Dev's have said on a few occasions the biggest obstacle is the AI scripts. Each gunner is making his own decisions and eating up computing power. You can have a squadron of single or twin engine AC or one B-17 (heavy bomber) at that rate.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well DCS has AI B-17s so I guess Ill just spend my money on that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lugubrious said:

Well DCS has AI B-17s so I guess Ill just spend my money on that

 

The DCS B-17 is not flyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I know they are AI, but at least they have them. I enjoy shooting them out of the sky in my 262. still hopeful for an updated version of queen of the skies tho. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lugubrious said:

yes I know they are AI, but at least they have them. I enjoy shooting them out of the sky in my 262. still hopeful for an updated version of queen of the skies tho. 

 

Yes, but your question was about flyable B-17s.  You apparently decided to move the goalposts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Yes, but your question was about flyable B-17s.  You apparently decided to move the goalposts.

whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet noone would be happier than the developers themselves if/when it becomes possible. Well there is always Lusekofte.  He *might* be happier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...