The Flyable Four Engine Bomber Topic

[JG1_Wittmann]

It could very well be the case that the devs take into account. The balancing act on mp servers also.  The fact is that introducing a heavy bomber for the allies, as only they used them extensively would create a playing field heavily tilted.  Just a thought

[IckyATLAS]

One can conclude the following thing from this poll, that definitively Il2 simmers want at least one flyable four engine bomber, which one (B24, B17, Lancaster, Wellington, FW 200, etc.) is less important but at least one. 

[Chris65]

I just want heavies as AI targets, I have no interest in flying them, but I miss diving through a formation of heavies like in '46.

[ATAG_SKUD]

I voted $50 but I'd pay $100 for an He-177

skud

Edited December 25, 2022 by ATAG_SKUD

[Peskius]

I feel like rather than an expensive as heck single collector plane; I'd rather they make a Normandy 2.0 (similar to DCS but actually worth it unlike theirs?) Where it covers more northern ground to give us London and up to Ipswich area. So we can actually get some of the proper bomber bases for both the USAAF and RAF. Something like this edit I've made here.
Then instead of having a roster of like 8-10 aircraft like most other big packaged DLCs I'd be happy with just to start with The Lancaster, The B-17 and the FW-200.

[Monksilver]

The model to date has been if you haven't purchased a plane you can still fly against it in single player.  A lot more of us want to shoot down or protect heavy bombers than want to fly one. So perhaps an alternative approach is needed being to introduce a heavy bomber on an AI basis only but you have to buy the AI version to have it appear in your missions at say $20  and $35 (or whatever amount) to be able to actually fly it to generate the level of sales needed to justify the development.

 

So worth adding question 'would you pay to have an AI only heavy bomber?'

 

Don't see it happening though.

 

[czech693]

A flyable B-25 (a later model) and a flyable B-26 I'd pay a premium for, but don't see how four engine heavy bombers would play into this sim.  I'm not interested in long, long missions.  Basically the underlying theme of this sim is air to ground (And I like four engine heavy bombers and have riden in a B-24J, and have been in a couple of B-17's and FiFi).

[Gingerwelsh]

 

Historic alternatives to high altitude long distance bombing, with 4 engine heavies within our existing maps are:

 

Close Air Support, up to 9000'.

Bomb beach defences at Normandy.

Low Level factory bombing (below 400').

Straffing and bombing of road convoys, 1200' at night.

V1 sites and fortified factories, including use of Tallboys.

Ports, including Tallboys.

Rail yards.

 

Add, anti-submarine and shipping, depth charging, minelaying estuaries, Special Ops, Glider Towing, troop parachuting, supply dropping, famine relief.

 

..

[kraut1]

In the Rhineland map there are already visible, but outside of the usable map limits, parts of the channel and the english east coast visible.

If this map could be extended, maybe only at the sea to the english coast, real strategic bomber to Germany missions would be possible:

Existing, but not accessable / populated: English east coast northern of River Themse (Rhineland Map):

 

Direction of the extension:

Existing, but not accessable / populated: Dover - Manston (Rhineland Map):

Existing, but not accessable / populated: Dover - Manston (Rhineland Map):

Existing, but not accessable / populated: English east coast northern of River Themse (Rhineland Map):

To reduce costs it would be sufficient if only a small part of the english east coast would be populated with towns villages and 2 or 3 historical airfields.

The rest could be populated by the gamers Community by using the Mission Editor.

Edited June 4, 2023 by kraut1

[Peskius]

18 hours ago, Peskius said:

I feel like rather than an expensive as heck single collector plane; I'd rather they make a Normandy 2.0 (similar to DCS but actually worth it unlike theirs?) Where it covers more northern ground to give us London and up to Ipswich area. So we can actually get some of the proper bomber bases for both the USAAF and RAF. Something like this edit I've made here.
Then instead of having a roster of like 8-10 aircraft like most other big packaged DLCs I'd be happy with just to start with The Lancaster, The B-17 and the FW-200.

also
just an addition to this
I'd give us the B-17, Lancaster and FW-200
and then for the collector plane: The Mosquito bomber variant (with the ability to drop pathfinder flares )

[LuftManu]

The idea of an expanded or even a specialiced map taken from Normandy and Bodenplatte maps is really interesting ?

 

As many said before, I don’t mind paying more if those airframes are costly to make. An He-177 and Lancaster could be a great pack of heavies for Steinbock timeframe. 

 

Kind regards, 

[Peskius]

4 hours ago, LuftManu said:

The idea of an expanded or even a specialiced map taken from Normandy and Bodenplatte maps is really interesting ?

Maybe if the devs opened up modded tools for IL-2:GB someone could try and merge the two maps in their own free time and it wouldn't be any sweat off of the Dev's backs, yknow

[kraut1]

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/78916-war-thunder/?do=findComment&comment=1266352

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/78916-war-thunder/?do=findComment&comment=1269617

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by kraut1

[SidtheGit]

On 6/4/2023 at 8:32 AM, Gingerwelsh said:

 

Historic alternatives to high altitude long distance bombing, with 4 engine heavies within our existing maps are:

 

Close Air Support, up to 9000'.

Bomb beach defences at Normandy.

Low Level factory bombing (below 400').

Straffing and bombing of road convoys, 1200' at night.

V1 sites and fortified factories, including use of Tallboys.

Ports, including Tallboys.

Rail yards.

 

Add, anti-submarine and shipping, depth charging, minelaying estuaries, Special Ops, Glider Towing, troop parachuting, supply dropping, famine relief.

 

..

 

My thoughts exactly. Instead of the Lancaster perhaps a Halifax - this carried out most of the roles listed above except for 'Tallboy'. With a Waco/Hadrian glider being developed what's to say we wouldn't get a Horsa glider. 'Pegasus Bridge' gliders on D-Day were towed to the LZ by Halifax which then went on to bomb Caen on the same mission. Your glider can be towed by an AI aircraft in MSFS, perhaps that could be achieved here too.

I accept that the Lancaster, B24 and others are more iconic than the Halifax but I think the Halifax matches the maps more appropriately.

[DFLion]

The Lancaster is the choice, without doubt - there are so many missions we could reproduce with our current map collection. The Halifax was a great bomber, which after the war developed into many more versions. What you all don't realize is that the 'Bodenplatte - Northern Europe map has been 'set-up' for the 'Dam Buster' mission, all the Dams are faithfully reproduced. I looked after a Lancaster pilot before he died at the age of 98. The stories he told me, I will never forget! He successfully completed 32 Missions over Germany with his crew and was awarded the DFC. Interestingly, I have a collection of "RAF Manuals on the Lancaster" which he gave me - I sure they would help us build this bomber. After "Hans' recent interview, he made it very clear that  the current 'Flight Sim Engine' had to be upgraded to be able to fly 4 engine bombers.

I have seen a Lancaster flying in England, and I will never forget the sound of those four Merlin engines. I have also walked around a real Lancaster on display and the aircraft overwhelms you. My friend the 'Lancaster pilot' told me the aircraft was a joy to fly, he said you could 'trim it up' to fly perfectly, even with a large bomb load. The interesting story about his experiences is that when he returned from the War he found it very difficult to drive a car? My Father flew a B24 Liberator during the War, we want to have the three major 4 engine bombers in the sim eventually - the  B17, B24 and Lancaster.

DFLion

[kraut1]

in respect of interesting to fly missions I think Lancaster and B24 are most interesting, because these planes were used sometimes for special low level missions and not only for formation flying in high altitude.

 

[Avimimus]

I agree.

 

I'd personally prefer AI aircraft (no need to develop cockpits, could maybe reduce systems complexity a bit to allow larger formations). It would be interesting to have intercepts and escort missions against B-17 or B-24 (I prefer the latter, but the former is iconic). I'd really like a Lancaster or even Wellington as an AI platform for the Ju-88C to hunt (they are actually slow enough to get caught).

 

But part of me would like a high fidelity flyable Lancaster  I suppose, I'd understand some Americans not seeing the point in it, similar to how I'm not as interested in a flyable B-17... so I'd compromise on having two or three AI aircraft rather than one flyable.

 

P.S. The Il-4 is also an interesting strategic bomber - even if it only had two engines. It is probably a more representative choice than the Pe-8, as it was much more common but used in a very similar role. That was actually something I found interesting when doing research - they tended to be station well behind the front and hit targets that were well behind the front in the other direction - a bunch of our maps had Il-4 on them, but they were flying over the maps most of the time (rather than landing or bombing them). Still there would have been a few bombing raids, and I think one of our maps might have had an Il-4 airfield on it.

[Trooper117]

55 minutes ago, kraut1 said:

because these planes were used sometimes for special low level missions and not only for formation flying in high altitude.

 

You wouldn't fly in a Lancaster in a pitch black night in a formation... you would be in a 'bomber stream' to help reduce the chance of a collision.

[DFLion]

How are you 'Trooper117',

I have answer for your question from my old departed Lancaster pilot. He had an exceptional Navigator on board his Lancaster, who kept there aircraft safely inside the Bomber Stream. The crews had the navigational means to keep the aircraft separated, even on a pitch black night, though accidents happened! The other story he told me was, if they were on the edges of the Bomber Stream they had more chances of being 'Picked-off' by German night fighters - so staying well within the Stream was safer.

DFLion

[Trooper117]

Ok here mate... nice posts and info from your Lancaster friend. I've seen the Lanc fly several times, and yes it's an awesome sound to be sure.

 

[DFLion]

You are right, 'Trooper117' the Lancaster four engine 'engine sound' is a sound that you can never forget. Just to completely agree what 'Avimimus' has said in his post, the 'AI' models of each bomber are certainly the way to go. Of course I would like a 'high fidelity' flying Liberator (My Father's WWII aircraft) though the Lancaster would be my first choice and I would be prepared to pay a premium for its development. 'Avimimus' I thought you would go for the "TB-7 Heavy Russian bomber" instead of the IL-4 - I am sure you would remember 'Oleg Maddox' produced this aircraft as an AI plane, then converted it to a flyable model in the original IL2 Sturmovik.

I am going to attach a picture of my friend the Lancaster pilot's awarded medals - he was a great man!

DFLion

[Gingerwelsh]

The flyable 4 engine bomber, Nah! Not interested.

 

As ai, thatt's a different matter.

 

The front runners are predictable.

 

B-17.

 

 

Lancaster.

 

 

I would prefer.

 

The second row runners.

B-24'

Or.

Handley Page Halifax.

Shorts Sterling.

 

Much more interesting, but even less likely.

..

 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Gingerwelsh

[VilsonFarias]

I really don't know why IL-2 hasn't added 4 engine bombers at least as AI, there would be so many different scenarios to explore. I would buy it the minute it was released.

 

Meanwhile, I spent some good money on DCS just to enjoy attacking some B-17 formations on Bf109 / Fw190s. Still, there would be much more possibilities if those bombers were flying on IL-2.

[CountZero]

41 minutes ago, VilsonFarias said:

I really don't know why IL-2 hasn't added 4 engine bombers at least as AI, there would be so many different scenarios to explore. I would buy it the minute it was released.

 

Meanwhile, I spent some good money on DCS just to enjoy attacking some B-17 formations on Bf109 / Fw190s. Still, there would be much more possibilities if those bombers were flying on IL-2.

Because fighter airplanes sell,spend 6 months on free B-17 as AI or spend 6 months on 20$ per peace of Ta-152H is easy question to answer. Ta-152H will fly off the shelfs in fighter player focused game like this.

[VilsonFarias]

17 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Because fighter airplanes sell,spend 6 months on free B-17 as AI or spend 6 months on 20$ per peace of Ta-152H is easy question to answer. Ta-152H will fly off the shelfs in fighter player focused game like this.

 

I agree, I don't think people would buy them as collector items but they would if they were part of some "Defending the Reich" module, which would contain new missions types and game core logic to support the big formations. There would be room even for planes like the Me163 in this case. Following the same business model we've seem so far, these exotic planes could be sold as part of a platinum edition for the people that don't like rocket/jet planes. Sorry for those who disagree but I see a product here.

[357th_KW]

Hopefully one day we'll at least get an AI B-17 or B-24 - it'll drop right into the MP missions I'm running right now.  In the meantime, I'm doing some creative mission editing to get the B-26 to stand-in for a four-engine bomber. 

 

 

 

[Buzzguinnog]

I would gladly pay for AI four-engine bombers. It would add a lot to the BoN and BP maps. Not fussed about them being flyable. Lancaster, Liberator, Flying Fortress, Stirling, Halifax. He 177 A-3 would be nice, and maybe even Pe-8 and Tupolev TB-3 for the Eastern Front.

[JG7_X-Man]

How about adding another option - Do you think it will ever happen? Then go ahead and pen my answer in as "No".

 

 

[Trooper117]

Well, they keep saying it's not the game engine that's stopping the ability to put them in the GB series.

When the new project surfaces, if they still can't put them in with all the new tech, then I guess you will never see them...

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

51 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Well, they keep saying it's not the game engine that's stopping the ability to put them in the GB series.

When the new project surfaces, if they still can't put them in with all the new tech, then I guess you will never see them...

As you know, there was a 4 engine bomber in Rise of Flight so the game engine is not a problem. 

[czech693]

I would prefer player flyable B-25's and B-26's before four-engine bombers.  This sim started out as an air to ground sim and long range strategic bombers would not fit into this context.  I can remember flying England to Berlin missions in EAW and that was a long boring flight. Also, medium bombers will fit in better with the Pacific mod in the future.

[R7-S276]

I could pay for a B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, Wellington or any multi engines if I am sur that all the crew positions (pilot copilot bomber navigator radio gunners…) are playable and not only the pilot and gunners and other positions occupy by ai