B-29 Superfortress flight stands

[Naharaht]

Are there any plans to eventually produce flight stands for B-29 Superfortress models, please, Keith? There are at least three 1:200 scale models of the B-29 available Enola Gay, Dina Might and an R.A.F. Washington.
196540196541196542

[Blackronin]

Yes! This goes well. I have one and thinking about getting another one. A base would be awesome.

[Oberst Hajj]

If you guys work up the firing arcs and stuff, I can make them.

[Blackronin]

If you guys work up the firing arcs and stuff, I can make them.

There you go. The door is open and the guests will arrive bringing cookies.
Thank you sir.

[Jager]

If you guys work up the firing arcs and stuff, I can make them.

I can put that on the list for Wednesday; just got home last night (thanks be that I had the foresight to take an extra day off work today!), so sorting out the house and such.
Karl

[OldGuy59]

Four turrets and a tail gun?

[Blackronin]

Four turrets and a tail gun?

Iup.

[Foz]

My chance to sow confusion!
Pictures of the gunnery control system on the B-29, for crew allocation of turrets.

196595
196594
196593

From what I've read so far, the turrets have a 360 degree traverse, limited by the props, each other, and the tail in the case of the upper turrets.

'Traverse - Both upper and lower turrets have a horizontal traverse of 360 degrees and may be elevated to 90 degrees from horizontal. These turrets are equipped with cam-controlled cut-off switches which protect the airplane from it's own fire. The tail turret is equipped with cut-off switches and mechanical stops which limit it's vertical and horizontal movement to 30 degrees each side of centered position .'
Page 46. B-29 Bomber Pilot's Flight Operating Manual

[Jager]

Remember too: for night missions over Japan, LaMay ordered all the guns but the tail guns removed. though from DB's article (on remote turrets), some crews kept the belly guns.
Karl

[Jager]

OK, a quick list here:
Front Top turret: 360, level to high, but blocked by the tail at level. the 45 degree BS usually used seems a lot (FW just blocks down the 6 O'clock line of hexes), so maybe a 30 degree arc?
Dorsal (back top) turret: as above, but I think the 45 degree BS is good. Not listing a block to the front, but maybe another 30 degree to take the front turret in account.
The 2 ventral turrets are 360 level to low, with the rear one blocked on the 12 O'clock line at level by the front turret. Another 30 degree BS?
The tail guns are listed as rear arc, so 5 O'clock to 7 O'clock. I'm not sure they shouldn't be more, like 4-8 O'clock ( 120 degrees), but I have no data yet.
Oh, and maneuver deck. It's a lot faster than the B-17, so probably a custom one. I'll see what I can come up with soon.
Karl

[Foz]

OK, a quick list here:
Front Top turret: 360, level to high, but blocked by the tail at level. the 45 degree BS usually used seems a lot (FW just blocks down the 6 O'clock line of hexes), so maybe a 30 degree arc?
Dorsal (back top) turret: as above, but I think the 45 degree BS is good. Not listing a block to the front, but maybe another 30 degree to take the front turret in account.
The 2 ventral turrets are 360 level to low, with the rear one blocked on the 12 O'clock line at level by the front turret. Another 30 degree BS?
The tail guns are listed as rear arc, so 5 O'clock to 7 O'clock. I'm not sure they shouldn't be more, like 4-8 O'clock ( 120 degrees), but I have no data yet.
Oh, and maneuver deck. It's a lot faster than the B-17, so probably a custom one. I'll see what I can come up with soon.
Karl

Looks good, but the dorsal & ventral turrets should be blocked by the props as well on the level. They had cut-offs to prevent shooting the props off.

Also on the tail...

The tail turret is equipped with cut-off switches and mechanical stops which limit it's vertical and horizontal movement to 30 degrees each side of centered position.

Wing loading: 337 kg/m² So another flying brick, probably nothing more than 30 degree turns.

Max speed: 360ish MPH. I would be tempted to give it a stripped down D deck (assuming a standard bomber base).

[Diamondback]

For a fun variant, I seem to recall having seen something once about a Superfort that was modified with a 75mm in the tail... can't seem to find the source again anywhere, and I'll bet it woulda been real interesting loading that monster from a pressurized cabin.

[Foz]

For a fun variant, I seem to recall having seen something once about a Superfort that was modified with a 75mm in the tail... can't seem to find the source again anywhere, and I'll bet it woulda been real interesting loading that monster from a pressurized cabin.

I know the early ones initially had a 20mm cannon in the tail, but it was removed or replaced later on.

[OldGuy59]

Just a thought, would this be any use?

Boeing B 29 Super Fortress Card (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/album.php?albumid=2860&attachmentid=126341)

[Jager]

Looks good, but the dorsal & ventral turrets should be blocked by the props as well on the level. They had cut-offs to prevent shooting the props off.

Also on the tail...


Wing loading: 337 kg/m² So another flying brick, probably nothing more than 30 degree turns.

Max speed: 360ish MPH. I would be tempted to give it a stripped down D deck (assuming a standard bomber base).

It is a tough call on how level level is; if the target has climb counters, and the bomber doesn't, you can shoot. If you're taking wings and props in account, have the TTs use 180 arcs at level (like Mike's card). The ventral turrets will need BSs for the other turret ;)
Only a small number of the initial run had 20mm in the tail; I would not bother with them. Now, some replaced them with a third 50 cal. BTW: all turrets except the forward TT are B/A, that one being BB/B.
For speed, we need a card with 4.5cm length. The cruising speed is quite slow, less than the bomber base (8cm) :hmm:
Karl

[OldGuy59]

Draft arcs?

196753

Looking at the side view of the plane, the rear ventral turret is on the upslope of the tail, and with the angle, would never hit the props. So, I did a 360 degree, unobstructed arc. Note, though, the rear turret can't fire directly forward at near level targets, but the rules state that ventral turrets can only fire at targets at lower altitude, so this should be good as indicated.

Debate? Suggestions?

[OldGuy59]

Really weird, but Jager's reply is not showing up here, just on my email alert?

Anyway, I thought that I did take into consideration the props.
Forward Dorsal turret only fires 190 degrees forward on the level.
Forward Ventral turret only fires 180 degrees forward (I think that the turret is close enough to the props, that even at one altitude lower, there might be a possibility of hitting the props).
Rear Dorsal turret 2 to 5:30 and 6:30 to 10 on the level, again, due to the blind spot on the tail and the props.
Rear Ventral turret, as above, no blind spots.
Tail turret 30 degree cone to the rear.

PS: I can't find anything on the B-29 stating that the turrets were more than twin 50 cals. The B-50 had quad 50 cals on the forward dorsal turret, but the B-29 did not. Also, the "Silverplate" atomic bombers were stripped of all guns and targeting computers except the tail position.

[Foz]

For speed, we need a card with 4.5cm length. The cruising speed is quite slow, less than the bomber base (8cm) :hmm:

http://www.boeing.com/history/products/b-29-superfortress.page
Yep, bloody awkward combination of max & cruise speeds. Fast arrow should be 4.65cm and the slow 0.15cm(ish). Even if you pulled down the top speed, the plane wouldn't run WEP constantly even in combat, it's impossible to do with a current deck. I would possibly go for a scenario split of decks. ZM if over target and doing a bombing run, as that would have to be done at cruise speed, C deck if jumped on route. Both with reversals and all turns except 30 degree removed.
At least until someone can come up with an unofficial deck.

[Jager]

Mike: I would make the tail arc bigger, as they had a proper turret for it. What's the arc for the B-17G? Also, if ventrals can only shoot at lower, than make both turrets 360. I don't think we need to parse the geometry that close ;)
For guns, the FW ADC has 4 on the front dorsal turret. A quick google came up with this from http://flgrube1.tripod.com/id26.html

Early combat experience indicated that the B-29 needed more protection against fighter attacks coming from the front. The forward dorsal turret armament was increased to four 0.50-inch machine guns on Boeing-Wichita production lines. Bell-Atlanta introduced this innovation and all Martin-built B-29s had four guns in the top turret from the beginning.

Steve: maybe we can figure the proportion between the speeds on the XA (B-17) deck and use them. (I have to get to work, so can't right now). It will be a Franken-deck anyway.
Karl

[Foz]

Mike: I would make the tail arc bigger, as they had a proper turret for it. What's the arc for the B-17G? Also, if ventrals can only shoot at lower, than make both turrets 360. I don't think we need to parse the geometry that close ;)
For guns, the FW ADC has 4 on the front dorsal turret. A quick google came up with this from http://flgrube1.tripod.com/id26.html


Steve: maybe we can figure the proportion between the speeds on the XA (B-17) deck and use them. (I have to get to work, so can't right now). It will be a Franken-deck anyway.
Karl

Karl: I've got to head out soon myself, so I'll have a think on the deck(s) later.
Mike: I agree on the tail arc, now that I've looked at your card. The rear arc should be 60 degree in total, 30 degrees from the center point horizontal.

[Diamondback]

Re fire arcs: Once front-top rotates behind the props, it has clear line-of-fire until blocked by the tail. Complicates things a little, but if Nose and Side gunners are cooperating, there's a second "broadside" Zone of Death on each side. Bottom front only has two narrow "pie slices" of blocking from the props similarly.

[OldGuy59]

I don't have no B-17 model, but the AA Flight Stand tail arc is pretty small. I could perhaps make it a bit wider, but I went with the 30 degree thing mentioned above (somewhere in my reading?).

And the front ventral turret might be able to shoot to the rear down the fuselage, but...
196883196884

Those props arcs are pretty big, and close to the turret. What is the altitude difference using the game mechanics? Do we care? If we don't, then 360 degrees on both front and rear ventral turrets could be done.

For the front dorsal turret, based on the prop arcs above, I wouldn't allow "On Level" firing to the rear. Any target above altitude is 360 degrees.

[Foz]

I don't have no B-17 model, but the AA Flight Stand tail arc is pretty small. I could perhaps make it a bit wider, but I went with the 30 degree thing mentioned above (somewhere in my reading?).


Yep, I quoted 30 degrees, but as a deflection from the center point, so 60 degrees overall in both the horizontal and vertical.
Sorry if I caused confusion.

[Diamondback]

USAF gives "normal" top end as 357mph and cruise as 220, so I'd say go with the AF numbers as "normal operating" and treat the Boeing figure as "WEP".
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/196252/boeing-b-29-superfortress.aspx

[Naharaht]

The tail 20mm cannon was removed because it had a different firing trajectory from the .50 inch machine guns. Crews were not supposed to engage in gun combat at high altitude under pressurized conditions for fear of puncturing the pressure skin. So, there would be no question of using a 75mm gun at high altitude. If fitted, I imagine it would be an anti-shipping weapon.

I am sorry to complicate this further but what about the gunners' viewing arcs? I have often wondered how much the side gunners could see below the aircraft, so there might be a blind spot directly below.

[OldGuy59]

196893
Perhaps there might be some arcs to the rear for the front dorsal turret, and it could be a bit closer to the tail, but I went with a braod blind spot for the tail. Tail gun not yet adjusted for the 60 degree arc.