Flight Model Tester Naughty_17 69 Report post Posted February 18, 2015 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Zaa4M8Bf-x88tHMJ4NP2DNSfmValqPiOGuaJHcc0C9w/pubhtml?gid=0&single=true 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fog_of_War 1,043 Report post Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Limitations Max IAS, mph 300 but Maximum speed is 399. So it should break due to overspeed always? Edited February 18, 2015 by Fog_of_War Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattkov 980 Report post Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Limitations Max IAS, mph 300 but Maximum speed is 399. So it should break due to overspeed always? IAS and speed are two complete different things. http://www.decodedscience.com/what-is-the-difference-between-true-air-speed-and-indicated-air-speed/22380 Edited February 18, 2015 by D12_Mattkov 1 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold 3,092 Report post Posted February 20, 2015 Where to start, where to start... First off, you don't list weights / load outs for any of these performance numbers. 399 MPH at what weight? Max Bombs and Max Fuel? 7:48 climb time for what weight? If we assume Max Bomb Load (20,000), and Max Fuel (38,690) for max weight (140,000) pounds the climb time to 10k feet at Normal Power is 23.5 minutes. Which means that you are off by 200%. Not a few percentage points here and there. You aren't even freaking close to the correct climb time. If we look at Normal Power climb time to 20k feet, it should be 61.5 minutes. It is listed at 16:24. Which means you are off by 270%. Next, you don't list RPM for the various power modes. They are 2400, 2600, and 2800 for Normal, Military, and WEP respectively. You also don't list the ACTUAL max HP per engine, which is 2500 BHP, rather than the 2200 listed. You've also not listed any limitation times for the various power settings. I was stunned to see the B-29 sitting at a 6.7 Battle Rating, but now it's understandable when it is over performing by several hundred percent. 10 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubRyan 5,556 Report post Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Why is the R-3350-57 being used on an early model B-29? It should only be using the R-3350-23 engine [spoiler][/spoiler] The B-29 differed from the test models in having 16-foot 7-inch diameter fully-feathering four-bladed propellers. The engines were Wright R-3350-23, with a war emergency rating of 2300 hp. The forward dorsal turret armament was increased to four 0.50-inch machine guns on Boeing-Wichita production block 40. Bell-Atlanta introduced this innovation on Block 10, and all Martin-built B-29s had four guns in the top turret from the beginning The R-3350-41 engine was introduced by Boeing on the Block 50 B-29. Both Martin and Bell followed suit on Block 20. By the end of the production run, all three companies had begun to use the R-3350-57 engine. Gaijin has already stated we are getting an early B-29 model without the 4 x .50cals in the dorsal turret, so the available production blocks that meet that criteria are the ones in bold in the following list (which leaves 10 blocks) B-29 block types BW = Boeing | BA = Bell | MO = Martin [spoiler] B-29-1-BW Superfortress B-29-1-BA Superfortress B-29-1-MO Superfortress B-29-5-BW Superfortress B-29-10-BW Superfortress B-29-15-BW Superfortress B-29-20-BW Superfortress B-29-25-BW Superfortress B-29-30-BW Superfortress B-29-35-BW Superfortress B-29-40-BW Superfortress B-29-45-BW Superfortress B-29-50-BW Superfortress B-29-5-BA Superfortress B-29-10-BA Superfortress B-29-15-BA Superfortress B-29-20-BA Superfortress B-29-25-BA Superfortress B-29-30-BA Superfortress B-29-40-BA Superfortress B-29-5-MO Superfortress B-29-10-MO Superfortress B-29-15-MO Superfortress B-29-20-MO Superfortress B-29-25-MO Superfortress B-29-30-MO Superfortress B-29-35-MO Superfortress B-29-40-MO Superfortress B-29-55-BW Superfortress B-29-60-BW Superfortress B-29-65-BW Superfortress B-29-70-BW Superfortress B-29-75-BW Superfortress B-29-80-BW Superfortress B-29-45-BA Superfortress B-29-50-BA Superfortress B-29-55-BA Superfortress B-29-60-BA Superfortress B-29-65-BA Superfortress B-29-45-MO Superfortress B-29-50-MO Superfortress B-29-55-MO Superfortress B-29-85-BW Superfortress B-29-86-BW Superfortress B-29-90-BW Superfortress B-29-97-BW Superfortress B-29-95-BW Superfortress B-29-96-BW Superfortress B-29-100-BW Superfortress [/spoiler] Here is the climb data that Danneskjold was talking about, and it is from August 1943 [spoiler][/spoiler] Edited February 20, 2015 by SubRyan 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpullpus 3,883 Report post Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Why is the R-3350-57 being used on an early model B-29? because gaijin obviously has absolutely no clue what version they want. they only said a "early version" because in their little heads that means the worst possible version. of course we all know that they had no particular version in mind when they modeled it. they never have with any of the FMs in the US tree. they just cherry pick stuff and cobble something together that looks and feels kinda like the real thing. only thing they were actually correct about out of the gate was the F7F. and they nerfed it and gave it a 6.7BR. Edited February 20, 2015 by Rumpullpus 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold 3,092 Report post Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Now I see that 41,000 KG's has been added. This is 101,400 pounds. The B-29 without bombs or fuel weighs 74,000 pounds. 27,400 pounds of useful load. Assuming 20,000 pound bomb load, it puts it at 7,400 pounds of fuel, or 18% total fuel. Or 12x1000 pounds, it gives us 15,400 pounds of fuel, or 28%. Anyway, using the SAC climb rates, this gives a TTC at this weight (no matter how you cut it) for 10k feet of ~8:41. For 20k feet it's ~19:15. For 30k feet it's ~28:35. All assuming Normal Power of 2400 RPM and 2000 HP. Edited February 21, 2015 by Danneskjold Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHaechi 3,115 Report post Posted February 24, 2015 On a cosmetic point of view: can we have a WW2 camo and roundels as default rather than Korean War? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoBaH_u3_5A 4,119 Report post Posted February 24, 2015 On a cosmetic point of view: can we have a WW2 camo and roundels as default rather than Korean War? this was one of my gripes I asked lassar and he said it is representative of a early 1944 B-29 yet we have the post September 1947 livery after the USAF was created :/ 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubRyan 5,556 Report post Posted February 24, 2015 this was one of my gripes I asked lassar and he said it is representative of a early 1944 B-29 yet we have the post September 1947 livery after the USAF was created :/ Weren' t the early B-29s painted green? [spoiler][/spoiler] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoBaH_u3_5A 4,119 Report post Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) Weren' t the early B-29s painted green? [spoiler][/spoiler] Beats me but they should not say USAF for sure >.> Edited February 24, 2015 by woodman_victory 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat 360 Report post Posted February 25, 2015 Beats me but they should not say USAF for sure >.> This. Indeed. It would be highly unusual (if not damned near impossible) to find an early, unmodified '29 in USAF markings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoBaH_u3_5A 4,119 Report post Posted February 25, 2015 This. Indeed. It would be highly unusual (if not damned near impossible) to find an early, unmodified '29 in USAF markings. Lassar litteraly said it was representing a early WWII B-29 so it should damn sure not be in the USAF livery 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
