Flyable B-17G

[oscar19681]

What are the chances of ever getting a flyable B-17G by ED or a third party developer?

I mean the DCS B-17 has So much potential and looks absolutly gorgious!

Plus the fact that not a single flight Sim has ever put any efford in featuring the Fortress since (at least not at a combatsim level) B-17 The mighty eight ( which is about 20 years old by now)

For Some reason nobody wants to take on the challange to make a realistic B-17 Sim for So Many years and fighters and other aircraft are allways favourd over the Fortress.

Its such a shame since historicly B-17 raids still dominanted the biggest part of the U.s europian airwar.

Plus the fact that maybe a mult crewed B-17 would make such a more interessting and fresh New experience in itself.

[Hawkeye60]

Markindel did create a B-17 mod.

There is a flyable version.

I know this is not what you want, or are asking about,

But with a bit of effort, a custom cockpit could be created.

Clickable!

 

The FM could be adjusted.

 

Mario has done it.

 

FYI

[dmwierz]

Flying a B-17 over Europe in WWII was one of the many reasons I became interested in DCS in the first place.

[Kayos]

It would be pretty cool

[philstyle]

For Some reason nobody wants to take on the challange to make a realistic B-17 Sim for So Many years and fighters and other aircraft are allways favourd over the Fortress.

Its such a shame since historicly B-17 raids still dominanted the biggest part of the U.s europian airwar.

 

 

Like the Lancaster and the B29, the B17's actual role in combat theatres is really not that suitable for gaming. These aircraft excelled at very long range strategic bombing. Who has time to sit in the cockpit for 8 hours, flying mostly S&L the whole time? Flying the B17 would be more akin to what you get in Civilian aviation sims.

 

 

Also, we're a long, long way of getting maps that large in DCS-style combat games.

 

 

This is why developers favour single and twin engined strike aircraft. They are far more "believably" employed on shorter (30 minute to 2 hour) sorties of the kind that suit the map size we have, and the time contraints that most players are subject to.

 

 

Flying "B17s raids over Europe" sounds nice, but in practice you need (1) the massive maps for it, and (2) the free time to spend 6 to 8 hours sitting in the aircraft.

 

 

Multi-crewing such a bomber sounds nice too... but who's going to sit in the gunner or bombadier position for 6 hours flying level at 25,000ft waiting for an intercept that may or may not come?

 

 

I would expect that most people (if they did have a flyable B17 in DCS) would end up trying to use it on solo bombing attacks at medium to low level.. without proper fighter support or the cover of 50+ other bombers in close formation. . which makes one wonder why even bother with the B17.. and why not go for something designed to do this (Mosquito, A20, Beaufighter, Typhoon, A26)...

 

 

Multicrew aircraft make far more sense for gaming when the crew positions actually have something to do (rather than just wiating around for hours on end), the F14 is a good modern example. I think the other next best example would be a door gunner for the huey.

[probad]

this is just another one of those fantasies that works out great in your own head where everyone is a clone of yourself with your same goals and interests, where every engagement scenario is perfect and ideal, and where all your enemies are always nice and cooperative.

Edited March 2, 2018 by probad

[Basco1]

Yeah........dream on,can't see that happening,lol...........some of us are still waiting for the devs to add bombs and fuel tanks to the Spitfire and that's been released well over a year now !

[philstyle]

..........some of us are still waiting for the devs to add bombs and fuel tanks to the Spitfire and that's been released well over a year now !

 

 

 

this

[Firebreak]

I hear you Basco1 It is kind of hard to make a WW2 bombing mission without BOMBS!

[Hueyman]

Well, of course it’s a debate and hopefully everyone is going to defend his positions.



Though I do NOT understand why so many are stuck in the impossibility we have one some day.

 

Can’t you understand many people are just fond of the B-17 design, as a very elegant and awesome Airframe on it’s own ?

 

 



 

 

Holy prop, we have those ubiquitous Fighters over and over again ( 109, Spits.. ) here and on IL2 as well as « What can I actually do with » planes such the Yak ... the B-17 definitely has its place. We have Normandy, what’s this for ?? It is wide enough to be it’s hunting range, period. Optimising stuff to welcome a Flying Fortress must be something in the scope of Eagle Dynamics. I know manpower and so are limited, but they’re spending way too much energy in trainers, in my humble useless opinion.

 

For those making assumptions that the B-17 is a complex A/C, you just get too much impressed by it. It’s a pretty simple design actually, built to last and to be easily serviceable on field with many interchangeable parts. Pretty straight forwards, it has four engines using superchargers for high alt performances.

 

 

 

 

 

I know this plane intimely as studying it for like twenty years, it’s history, design, building, development etc. Probably the most complex stuff to do could be the Norden modeling and integration and original implementation of multicrew and management system in single player pretty much like B-17 II : The Mighty Eighth was ( still an awesome sim nearly 20 years after ), but for sure if there is such a strong and continious popular demand, it wil come sooner or later.

 

Keep showing your interest dudes ! And I’d personally give 1500 USD just to start the project and encourage others to follow.





Hueyman

[Emmy]

Did "Death Star" runs in Air Warrior...

 

Two hours of nothing followed by 10 minutes of watching fighters spin trying to reach you (and maybe you get off 50 rounds at some poor guy as a belly turret gunner) and then you either hit the target or all die because the pilot got bored and bailed out without telling anyone...

 

I'll pass...

[Hueyman]

Never forget that Fighters are nothing, it’s Bombers who write History [ True Story ]

[DefaultFace]

There are 2 types of airplanes: Fighters and Targets!

[xvii-Dietrich]

Holy prop, we have those ubiquitous Fighters over and over again ( 109, Spits.. ) here and on IL2 as well as « What can I actually do with » planes such the Yak ... the B-17 definitely has its place.

 

 

 

I share your lament about having the "same old fighter set" on repeat.

 

And having flown 1000+ Ju-88 hours in flight combat games, I can assure you that I appreciate the bomber aspect of the air war.

 

However, the strategic bombers are a difficult match for DCS, as it currently stands. The B-17 is better suited to a character-based game, or even a civilian sim. I think philstyle has neatly covered the relevant points on that (LINK).

 

 

 

 

One of the latest DCS updates (LINK) indicates the inclusion of twin-engined aircraft; an important step in diversifying the DCS WW2 planeset. The DH-98 "Mosquito" will be human-flyable... hopefully the others mentioned will be too. The DH-98 also serves as reconnaissance and pathfinder — roles better suited to individual pilots. In this sense, I think DCS is moving in the right direction.

 

After that, I think photo-recon is the best option after fighters and ground-attack, as this is a genuine single-aircraft role, suits the fast twin-engined aircraft, and has a vital impact on any campaign... I do wish it was better catered for in DCS.

 

Ultimately, the "big formations" of the strategic bombers make them a massive challenge for any simulator, especially as levels of realism and the corresponding demands on computer performance escalate. Yes, strategic bombers are vital AI units in DCS WW2, but there are far more practical and interesting choices for upcoming player aircraft... and choices that are not just-another-fighter.

 

 

I am very grateful that the B-17 is an AI unit. That is critically important.

 

 

But I think the implementation of a flyable B-17 would be a mistake.

[rogonaut]

a flyable b17 would be pretty cool, fly from england to france drop bombs. i bet its a blast to fly. multicrew it with a buddy who can swap positions and let other friends escort u in fighters - tell me thats not fun:P

 

u dont have to fly 6 hours straight if u dont wish to do so^^

 

seems like were getting strikers some day, so id personally prefer to develope transports and parachute capable c-47 skytrains and ju-52 first... dropping parachuters into combat to capture airfields would be very nice. also some new juicy targets for them fighters, and they would be great for blue flag style missions!

 

 

my two cents

[baylor703]

The old b-17 game is what got me in to flight sims. It had a lot of role playing aspects (healing wounded crew, flight plans, extinguishing fires etc) but if DCS made an updated clickable cockpit version with a real bombsite it would be marvelous. I will hold out hope.

[msalama]

a flyable b17 would be pretty cool

 

It'd be the dog's bollocks, the bee's knees, the whole mojambo, da bizniz, the shiznit, whatever. Alas, we most likely won't see one in a loooooong while. Just grin and wait... ;)

Edited November 9, 2018 by msalama

[fmedges]

You could always fly the A2A simulations B17. It lacks combat, but has a clickable cockpit.

[KalAbaddon]

This game has a B17 where you can crew different positions and mission planing! I played it when it came out and cant give it more praise!

[philstyle]

This game has a B17 where you can crew different positions and mission planing! I played it when it came out and cant give it more praise!

 

 

 

That was my introduction to flight "simming"! . . back in 1991 or 92.

[NeilWillis]

Regarding the deep penetration 8 hour flights - heavies were also used to soften up the transport hubs and troop concentrations, fortifications etc just behind the Pas de Calais and Normandy coasts.

 

We already have the Normandy map, and there were plenty of short-range missions, so the long-range argument falls down pretty quickly when you do your homework. There is also the extreme altitude aspect, where a map could have detailed airbases and country around them, low detailed transit routes, and detailed targets set as far apart as you would wish, but including the contemporary navaids. That wouldn't be any more difficult to achieve than the small area maps with high detail. Throw in a few detailed airbases for the fighters to operate out of, and you have a solution to the long-range mission question too.

 

If you ask me, a study-level heavy bomber would be a market beater, and something a lot of people would want - especially if there was the ability to hop into any crew position or have a complete multiplayer multi-crew experience.

 

 

Of course, it won't please the fighter fraternity, and they could demonstrate their disgust by shooting the heavies down - so they'd be happy too - unless the multi-crew gunners spoiled their day - so they would also be happy. What exactly is the issue apart from the technical hurdles that ED would have to wrestle with for the next few years to make this dream a reality?

 

 

It may, of course, be marketed as a stand-alone simulator. That's up to the developers of course.

[dannyq8]

+1 Well put Neil

[Dino Might]

I think the B-17 could be a fantastic addition to the assets pack and/or Combined Arms. Keep it AI flown, but add functionality for people to jump in as gunners, bombardiers, or navigators. The systems could remain simplified.

 

Example: Bombardier - once doors are open, you have dials for course adjustment commands, sight adjustment, and bomb release.

 

Devs could limit gunner positions to ball-turret and top-turret if they wanted to reduce the total development effort.

 

It would add a lot of great things that people want without requiring the development of a full, flyable module.

[philstyle]

I think the B-17 could be a fantastic addition to the assets pack and/or Combined Arms. Keep it AI flown, but add functionality for people to jump in as gunners, bombardiers, or navigators. The systems could remain simplified.

 

 

Now that's not a bad idea. Maybe combined arms could be used to enable "gunner" positions in the AI-piloted B17?

 

 

To the ire of some, I am sure, I don't want to see human-piloted B17s, at least in DCS multiplayer. A bunch of randomly flown individual 4-engine bombers about the map is not WW2-like, unless they are damaged (i.e. they fell out of their formation) or they're doing specific night-time ops (e.g. Dams raid).

 

 

 

However, putting human players into the gunner or bombadier slots means we can keep the B17s flying in decent sized formations, as they should be during daylight attacks.

[Silver_Dragon]

A B-17 has a very complex machine, at "same" level of a "hornet / Tomcat" on system (WW2 of course), not only the cockpit, the norden bomb-sight, radios, fuel transfer system, bombing equipment, oxygen, emergency systems, etc. Other problem has build "all" interior (bomber/navigator, pilot/copilot, flight engineer turret, radio post, waist gunner posts, ball turret and tail turret), and making the associate systems and functionality. I put them as a "very big" project.

 

Other point has build a "frozen" simulation, in case of system damage at high altitude. The "box" formations, radio communications and bombing procedures can require a improvement.

 

Other "old" B-17 simulator.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Silver_Dragon