PDA

View Full Version : Some planes catch on fire way too easily...



Luftcaca
06-29-2004, 11:35 AM
...compared to some others

and I named:

P-39'S
P-63
190's

we already mentionned this problem about the Airacobra and the Kingcobra but anyone else noticed how easily the 190 catched on fire? I know the fuel tank was historically one of its weakness but still I think it is a wee bit overmodelled. Im currently flying Yak9 Normandie Niemen and we are often engaged angaisnt A5/A4 and most of em will catch on fire after a short burst or 2 and we all know, despise the fact that the object viewer says the opposite than the Yak9 is NOT heavily armed.

So whats the point of making the 190 so armored if it behaves like a lighter?

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

Luftcaca
06-29-2004, 11:35 AM
...compared to some others

and I named:

P-39'S
P-63
190's

we already mentionned this problem about the Airacobra and the Kingcobra but anyone else noticed how easily the 190 catched on fire? I know the fuel tank was historically one of its weakness but still I think it is a wee bit overmodelled. Im currently flying Yak9 Normandie Niemen and we are often engaged angaisnt A5/A4 and most of em will catch on fire after a short burst or 2 and we all know, despise the fact that the object viewer says the opposite than the Yak9 is NOT heavily armed.

So whats the point of making the 190 so armored if it behaves like a lighter?

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

p1ngu666
06-29-2004, 12:22 PM
fire was main reason aircraft went down..

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

Luftcaca
06-29-2004, 12:33 PM
yes, I see you missed the point here

read back

I remember writing something that sounded like COMPARED TO OTHER PLANES

of course fire was a main reason why aircraft went down, but for some planes it is WAYYYYYY more obvious than for others

Listen I can shoot down easily 12 p-39 in a IAR80 and still have ammo left

100% of the 12 P-39 will go down on fire after a few hits of MG's

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

p1ngu666
06-29-2004, 01:07 PM
my bad http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

faustnik
06-29-2004, 01:22 PM
You forgot a BIG one:

The B-17 with the amazing superflammable self-combusting fuel tank.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/B17damage.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Luftcaca
06-29-2004, 01:22 PM
no trouble mate http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

now tell me what do you think about it?
Havent you notice some planes use to catch on fire too easily compared to some others?

oh and yes I'd like to mention also that the B-239 still explodes with very few shots. Was it made out of Uranium or something?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

Luftcaca
06-29-2004, 01:26 PM
yes I heard also that the B-17 was a big flying fuel tank but since I mostly play offline campaigns I rearely fight agaisnt Flying Fortresses

the Db3 seems to catch on fire easily too but only when hit by 13mm MG's, like the ones on the IAR81a...go figure

of course the SB2 is a flying lihgter too but I think thats historically accurate

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

End_Creditz
06-29-2004, 07:02 PM
in semi agreement on the fire thing with those planes. I'm more interested in peoples thoughts on tracer fire hitting planes with fuel leaks, shouldn't that be more likely to start a fire? Or any hot/explosive ammo hitting a plane that's trailing air fuel.

The End is near

Hunde_3.JG51
06-29-2004, 11:39 PM
I wish I still had track where I took Spitfire and hit 190A with 1 .303 round (had arcade on) and the Focke Wuld caught fire. It is still one of the funniest things I have seen in FB.

The 190 doesn't catch fire too easily per se, I think it is more an instance of there being a specific spot that if hit, will cause a fire no matter what size round or how many.

The P-63C still has the worst DM by far, actually I hate to say it even has one. A body and wings made of 20mm and below resistent material with an engine that is seemingly a time bomb waiting to be set off with just a few rounds. Hit the wing of the P-63 with 20mm rounds and the engine will smoke http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif but the wing will remain unscathed. I e-mailed Oleg about this but just sort of mentioned it, one day when I feel like it I will make a good track and send it too him. But any time against P-63 at all should make this obvious.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Fehler
06-30-2004, 12:39 AM
You know, I dont find the 190 too flammable, and I fly it everyday, and exclusively. I have noticed, however that the plane leaks fuel from a hit anywhere, as if the whole entire plane was a flying fuel cell.

The P-63: I think the Russians put the IL2 under-armor on the wings for sure. But I have noticed that the thing does not do too well if you his it's belly. It breaks apart rather well from shots there. The P63's DM is so freaky, I dont even know where to begin to talk about it. It's wing top s are made of Kevlar, but it's engine must have been designed by the same guy that made the Diamler Benz paper engine. The hit boxes have to be moved around a little bit on this rig, be sure!

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Hunde_3.JG51
06-30-2004, 01:46 AM
And I definitely agree with Fehler, I fly the 190 as much as possible and I never really thought it caught fire easily. Actually it is pretty rare that it ever happens at all online.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

dadada1
06-30-2004, 03:29 AM
I think 190 has to receive some good hits before it catches fire, to me it's quiet resilient, certainly a safer mount then a 109. P 63 and P 39, yeah they catch too easy but where else is the P 63's weakness DM wise?

If P 39 has an oil leak it takes forever to affect it's performance and can usually make it back to base, not so the 109 or Lagg 5. If you hit a P39 like this you think he's out until he manages to outclimb you and give you a good clobbering. P 39 has more oil reserves than the middle East. Hit a 109 in this way and it's more or less dead. There's just so many inconsistancies.

BerkshireHunt
06-30-2004, 08:58 AM
The real- life FW190 was not as reslient as some would like to believe. This is from 'Under the Red Star- Luftwaffe Aircraft in Soviet Service' by Finnish historian, Carl Fredrik Geust:

"Another FW190 made a forced landing in winter 1943 at the North Western Front covered by the 6th Air Army commanded by Maj. Gen Fyodor P. Polynin. The Inspector of the VVS Headquarters, Col. N G Seleznev arrived from Moscow to test it. After two days of meticulous inspection on the ground he made the first flight- and found the FW190 heavy in aerobatics. In his opinion the new Soviet fighters were more manoeuvrable. Seleznev recommended to attack the FW190 from above or from underneath where it was vulnerable. Among the other deficiencies noted by him were POOR FORWARD VISION, and the UNSHIELDED FUEL TANK which could be easily set on fire. On explicit orders the aircraft was later ferried to Moscow for further investigation by Seleznev."

So it seems the 190A4- A6 did not have much in the way of armour protection for its fuel tanks, though they were undoubtedly of the self- sealing type.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-30-2004, 09:22 AM
Berkshire, that is funny since Western tests pretty much say the exact opposite in many respects than this test from the East. Most tests/impression (including Eric Brown's and the accounts given in books like JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe, FW-190 Aces of the Russian/Western Front, etc.) say the FW-190 was a joy to fly and was easy to perform aerobatics in with light and responsive controls. And I don't know how the above tests define maneuverability, but in most western tests you will find it is said that the FW-190 was more maneuverable than most of its counterparts except in turn radius. Maybe that is the difference, maybe western tests consider maneuverability to be in the areas of roll and high speed handling, whereas eastern tests consider maneuverability to be more focused on turn radius. It is well known that the VVS put a high emphasis on tight turning planes and that their tests are notoriously non-complimentary to aircraft outside of their own. So you will excuse me if I take this test with a grain of salt. Also, you will find that sources state that the FW-190 had very good forward visibility when in flight, but poor forward visibility when taxiing.

And I hardly consider a recommendation to attack a plane from below as saying it is not that "resilient." The fuel tanks were in fact located below and aft of the cockpit area but were self-sealing. Still, an attack from below would be a sound tactic and hits there would certainly be problematic (as with most planes).

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BombTaxi
06-30-2004, 09:30 AM
I fly 190s a lot in offline campaign and I have found that they're one of the toughest dogfighters in the game. The 109 was certainly more flammable, and it was notorious for incinerating pilots, as there was (in the E-series at least) a fuel tank directly under the pilot's seat. I don't recall ever going down in flames in a 190...happens all the time in a 109 tho. The 109 also has a nasty habit of trailing black smoke from the engine then suddenly bursting into flames without being hit again. I havent noticed that problem on any other a/c.

xanty
06-30-2004, 09:56 AM
Hi'all:

I must say I was quite surprised the other day as to how easy it was to set aflame the 190 on a hurricane...

I must say it seems that some planes are very easy to set aflame using small-caliber guns such as brownings or SvKAS (sp? 7.7mm): The 190, the Cr.42 , the P39 and even the Yak-1 sprint to mind. However, most of these planes seem quite resistent to highter explosive rounds like 20mm. Many times I have covered the Yaks with 20mm rounds from a 109 and see not a single spark of fire, even with big fuel leaks on the plane. However, a few rounds from the Mg17 (when they fly a bit straight) will set them aflame nicely.

As I see it, some planes hit by some armaments are more affected than others. Some weapons don't seem to produce fires: BS/MG131, Mg151/SvKas (20mm) whilst others seem to do it all the time (specially the ShKAS 7.7mm) This also depends on the plane itself.

*Note: My observations are offline against AI.

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
06-30-2004, 10:02 AM
Completely agree Xanty, your comments echo what I was saying about specific spots on planes. It almost seems like only small caliber rounds can fit through some magic hole that does not let bigger rounds in and set the plane aflame. I can get hit with .50's and rarely catch fire, yet .303's will light the 190 up. As you said, different weapons effect planes very differently. I remember awhile back the best illustration of this was to fly a 109 or La-5 against an AI Macchi-202, then use P-40. You could hit that thing all day long with 20mm rounds and do nothing, hit it with .50's and it fell apart like wet paper. I believe this weapon effectiveness discrepency is still the case but in varying degrees.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Luftcaca
06-30-2004, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
And I definitely agree with Fehler, I fly the 190 as much as possible and I never really thought it caught fire easily. Actually it is pretty rare that it ever happens at all online.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also fly the 190 currently in Lvov, 190A8 to be precise
and I agree to say that it never catches on fire when Im flying it, simply cuz the AI cant compete when Im flying 190, I cant remember the last time a fighter shot me down or even hit me.

but you guys do the test NOW

take a Yak 9 and dogfight with some A4

Aim for the 190's fuselage with short bursts of UB and ShVAK

all of em will go down on fire, trust me

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

IAFS_Painter
07-01-2004, 01:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Berkshire, that is funny since Western tests pretty much say the exact opposite in many respects than this test from the East. Most tests/impression (including Eric Brown's and the accounts given in books like JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe, FW-190 Aces of the Russian/Western Front, etc.) say the FW-190 was a joy to fly and was easy to perform aerobatics in with light and responsive controls.{snip}

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This reflects how easy many VVS planes were to fly - compared with Axis or Western types.

http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2/signature/paint_sig_003.jpg
il2airracing.com (http://www.il2airracing.com) Painter's Pages (http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2)
I've given up correcting my own spelling
Unless I've corrected it here

Aimosika
07-01-2004, 03:54 PM
And some planes dont...

Try to shoot U2, just took pics with pilot with 6 .50 cals through stomach (and engine and fuel tank). And the same through gunner.. Is this U2 something superplane? Only headshots matter? Is this the way with the all the other planes?? Only headshot kills the gunner??

Hunde_3.JG51
07-01-2004, 04:37 PM
Agreed Painter, many VVS planes were very easy to fly. I saw a Yak demonstration that was incredible, a real eye opener. Many people also under-estimate the ruggedness (which is different than ability to take damage)) of the VVS planes. They operated in extremely harsh conditions, and did it consistently. I must admit that I was influenced by the American view that most VVS planes were junk, likely a result of the cold war, etc. And I am thankful that Oleg has given me a more accurate picture IMO (though I still have issues with some planes' in-game performance http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), and has sparked my interest and desire to learn more about Soviet aviation during WW-II.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

CaptainGelo
07-02-2004, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimosika:
And some planes dont...

Try to shoot U2, just took pics with pilot with 6 .50 cals through stomach (and engine and fuel tank). And the same through gunner.. Is this U2 something superplane? Only headshots matter? Is this the way with the all the other planes?? Only headshot kills the gunner??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


havnt u seen terminator..thats where they got microchip.....

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you..

Luftcaca
07-02-2004, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimosika:
And some planes dont...

Try to shoot U2, just took pics with pilot with 6 .50 cals through stomach (and engine and fuel tank). And the same through gunner.. Is this U2 something superplane? Only headshots matter? Is this the way with the all the other planes?? Only headshot kills the gunner??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


welcome to the wonderful world of the Lagg3 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

nah...the Lagg3 witll catch on fire....sometimes

on this I'd like to add the Hawk75 to the "everburnin' birds" list http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

dadada1
07-02-2004, 01:51 PM
The U2 is a strange one. Am I wrong in thinking it's only a wood and canvas aeroplane that should catch fire relatively easy? Or is it the case that its a Titanium frame covered in a tight Kevlar weave ? Only seems susseptable to continous 20mm fire or a few well placed Mk108. Even then its only the wings that let it down. Gunners darned accurate as well, but I suppose he does have a very stable platform to shoot from, no nasty G forces to contend with.

Luftcaca
07-02-2004, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
The U2 is a strange one. Am I wrong in thinking it's only a wood and canvas aeroplane that should catch fire relatively easy? Or is it the case that its a Titanium frame covered in a tight Kevlar weave ? Only seems susseptable to continous 20mm fire or a few well placed Mk108. Even then its only the wings that let it down. Gunners darned accurate as well, but I suppose he does have a very stable platform to shoot from, no nasty G forces to contend with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree dadada, the U2 is a funny one
of course no one will make a big fuzz out of it cuz its not a popular plane such as the Yaks or the Pe2 or....you know what I mean

But the DM of that plane is quite something

take a Hurri Mk1, you can empty all your mags on a single U-2 without taking it down, of course it will be filled with holes (unlike the Lagg3) but I reckon this old bird should go down with less than that, or start to burn or something

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

Danschnell
07-02-2004, 02:52 PM
I've posted about this fire thing before.

People must take the gun type into account.
It is true that these planes don't catch fire when hit repeatedly, unless it is by small calibre rounds.

The .303 is the most effective weapon on the game because it ALWAYS sets the Fw190, P39, Mig3, B-17, and Ju87 alight.

I agree that light early war fighters like the Mig3 and P-39 should set alight easily, because they would've been vulnerable to the .303. However I'm quite dismayed that the Fw190 and B-17 are so easily destryod in this respect.

Fire is the easiest way to down a plane, as the AI pilots bail at the first sign of fire. This is what has created the hilarious situation where the .303 and other small calibre guns have become more effective than 20mm cannons. I think its a serious issue.

mortoma
07-02-2004, 02:58 PM
I'm kind of glad the B-17 has the super flammable wing tanks, cause otherwise there's almost no way you could shoot it down!! The rest of the beast's DM is way overmodelled as far as I'm concerned. Four out of five times I shoot it down, it's the flaming wing tank thing that I can thank for killing it. This leads me to believe that if not for the wing catching fire I'd hardly ever have killed one of them.

Luftcaca
07-31-2004, 12:14 PM
I'd like to bump that thread by saying that:

The P-36 is just a big lousy flying fuel tank...
Cmon its catches on fire WAY TOO EASILY!

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

wants flyable:

early 110's
IL-10
Pe-3