(note I have made a suggestion for this already, but I was just wondering what the community thinks of this)
(this is a word-for-word the suggestion I have made excluding the polls that were causing issues in posting this)(The suggestion has not been approved as of the making of this post)
The b-47 is many things; Iconic, Big, fast (for its time), and even a movie star.
While it’s not the fastest aircraft by any standard, it can still hold its own in a fight.
The B-47 is classified as a long-range medium bomber that is capable of delivering payloads of:
- 2 x Mk15 nuclear bombs
- 4 x 1.1–1.45 megaton yield each
- 1 × 25 megaton yield
- 1 × 9 megaton yield
- 28 × 500 lb (227 kg) conventional bombs
and is armed with 2x 20mm cannons in a remote-controlled tail turret
(below applies to the b-47E)
Crew: 3
engines: 6 x General Electric J47-GE-25 engines, 7,200 lbf (32 kN) thrust each
Length: 107 ft 1 in (32.64 m)
Wingspan: 116 ft 0 in (35.36 m)
Height: 28 ft 0 in (8.53 m)
Max Takeoff weight: 221,000 lb (100,244 kg)
Max speed: 607 mph (977 km/h)
Service ceiling: 40,500 ft
Radars:
- AN/APS-64: Search Radar
- AN/APS-84: Tracking Rada
- AN/APS-54: Tail-Warning Radar System; manufactured by ITT
- AN/APS-84: Tracking Radar
- AN/APG-39: Gun-laying radar
- AN/APG-32: X-Band Tail Turret Autotrack Radar; manufactured by General Electric
The b-47 was featured in the lesser-known 1955 movie: Strategic Air Command, alongside the b-36 peacemaker
For more info:
(feel free to discuss below)
(and feel free to share any additional information you have below)
4 Likes
But aside from that I really do agree we should add this we don’t have any true jet bombers and this would be a good start for America.
I don’t think the even f22 existed when the b47 was retired completely cause it got retired in 1969
2 Likes
who would not want to see that combo or maybe a F-86-B-47 combo wambo
thought I made a new reply. Accidently changed the first one
oooooooh that would be cool if you mix in an f-100 and f-86’s escorting it
Intriguing the F-4 phantom as well?
its a parade at that point :p
the saber is closet cause it has similar speed the f-4 and F-100 further up to inercept cause they are faster.
I’d prefer the B-58 over another big multiengine bomber.
1 Like
If this is a word for word i dont think its passing
Either way i think its a cool bomber but it would suffer in wt.
No, cause right now strategic bombers do not fill any gaps that other aircraft cannot do. I would say they are funny however unless its very low tier. Then it doesn’t serve much of a purpose, only really at lower tier Battle ratings up to 2.7 no more. This is where bombers dominate the most, however, BRs such as 3.0->3.7 do still have a function. Anywhere past that and the role is irrelevant.
Thing is they could even be added as AI to intercept. Whilst it would be cool to actually fly them ourselves, if they’re added as mission assets, there would be more assets to be brought to players at a time that is more suitable when more things are added to equal it.
That would not be the same. That’s 2 separate models. One is a lower poly, the other is not. I would welcome the idea, however.
“I would prefer a fast slice of pie over a slice of pie”
1 Like
The models poly count has nothing to do with anything… The model is a model, regardless of what it has or hasn’t, and the interiors and the rest can be made up or even fixed later on.
Definitely would be something though aye, get things that are literally placeholders, made for AI on the outset, and then made and adapted to being player controlled after.
I really want to see a player controllable C-47… Really do want it.
Once again, ill say it again, It. Does. Not. Serve. A purpose.
That’s correct.
But also because the Hustler is sleeker and smaller and more maneuverable. Not just another large multiengine rp piñata.
