PDA

View Full Version : Starting to see a pattern in DM models



VW-IceFire
11-27-2005, 09:38 PM
The following planes seem to have their tails fall of when hit by enemy fire with alarming frequency:

1) P-38
2) P-47
3) Bf-109 (most or all models)
4) B-25 (yes, its true)
5) A-20G
6) Ki-100-I-Ko
7) Ki-61 (all models)

Anyone think of any other that you've noticed you loose tails alot in?

I'm sure that planes lost their tails...but is there something else at work here? I mean, you'd expect that if you got hit by a heavy flak battery that yes your tail would fall off and the plane would break up...but on the other hand, although powerful the 20mm and 30mm cannons are, you wouldn't expect the tails to fall off larger aircraft...would you?

Its the frequency of the event rather than the event itself that I'm noting here.

Stigler_9_JG52
11-27-2005, 10:07 PM
Far as I remember, only one plane, in its early version, had a proclivity for tails falling off, and that was the Tempest.

As for getting shot off, none really come to mind more than any other. Although, you might think, the tail/fuse joint is usually the thinnest area of the entire plane; who knows if a direct hit right on or near that joint with a 30mm strike or a good stitch of 20mm might take it clean off.

Viper2005_
11-27-2005, 10:12 PM
MK108 fire should knock the tail off pretty much anything if it hits in the right place.

If you go searching you'll find some very scary pictures taken post war when the MK108 was fired at various Allied aircraft deemed "surplus to requirements" for testing purposes.

http://marinergraphics.com:16080/ww2/files/damage/108vsbrit.GIF

You really don't want to argue with 30 mm rounds!

20 mm fire is a different matter. Single 20 mm rounds are unlikely to cause massive structural failure.

There's all manner of pictures and information on this rather useful website:

http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

ImpStarDuece
11-27-2005, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Far as I remember, only one plane, in its early version, had a proclivity for tails falling off, and that was the Tempest.

As for getting shot off, none really come to mind more than any other. Although, you might think, the tail/fuse joint is usually the thinnest area of the entire plane; who knows if a direct hit right on or near that joint with a 30mm strike or a good stitch of 20mm might take it clean off.

It was the Typhoon that was notorious for shedding is tails, not the Tempest. Both the early P-51s and the Bf-109F had losses to tail shedding as well, which were rectified in later production.

Initially the problem with the Typhoon was thought to be buckling at the fuselage joint from massive G forces from pulling out of 500 mph dives, but structural testing showed that the tail section was more than strong enough. There was buckling, but it was unlikely to causes any trouble. The did beef up the transition joints as a result of the investigations though, intially with two steel bands. Later Hawker got rid of the bands and added "fishplates" to the fuselage and reinforced the internal stringers, eventually incorportating the modifications into the production line by around the end of 1942. Another theory about the cause of tail seperations was massive yaw and airflow imbalances caused by the elevators during hard manouvers. The elevator seating and elevator mass balance was reset as a result.

Later investigations came to the conclusion that it was sympathetic harmonic vibrations transferred through the airframe from the engine to the tail section that were the cause of the tail shedding. Harmonic vibrations were little understood at the time. The initial installations of the Sabre were notorious for heavy vibrations at certain rpm levels. There was a nasty story about a pilot coming in to land a Typhoon and suddenly going temporarily blind beacuse the vibrations of the engine overwhelmed the natural vibrations of the cones and rods in his eyes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Most authorities seem to think that the virbations were the cause of the tail shedding, not any structural flaws. The Sabre II got a new engine mounting brace in 1943, which alleviated the problem in new built Typhoons, but there were some aircraft that flew without the fishplates or new engine mounts, well into 1944.

There were 16 Typhoons lost to tail sheeding, 4-8 lost to undercarriage deployments during dives (some may of been the result of flak hits though) and 2 lost to C02 leakage into the cockpit, which forced all Typhoon pilots to fly with oxygen masks on from takeoff.

Viper2005_
11-27-2005, 11:47 PM
CO, not CO2 AFAIK.

WOLFMondo
11-28-2005, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Far as I remember, only one plane, in its early version, had a proclivity for tails falling off, and that was the Tempest.

As for getting shot off, none really come to mind more than any other. Although, you might think, the tail/fuse joint is usually the thinnest area of the entire plane; who knows if a direct hit right on or near that joint with a 30mm strike or a good stitch of 20mm might take it clean off.

It was the Typhoon that was notorious for shedding is tails, not the Tempest. Both the early P-51s and the Bf-109F had losses to tail shedding as well, which were rectified in later production. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read 25 lost there tails, the last being on 1945. Either way, out of 3000+ machines not as bad as people make out.

JtD
11-28-2005, 01:15 AM
I don't lose tails often. IIrc my last few deaths were:

- killed in emergency landing after hit by AAA in H8K
- crashed after AAA severed controls in Ju 87
- killed by spin shooting at low level in Bf 109
- pilot killed in P-38
- chrashed after hit by AAA in Ju 87
- chrashed after hit by AAA in FW 190
- killed during landing collision in Tu-2

Tails come off planes?

IL2-chuter
11-28-2005, 01:43 AM
I've repeatedly seen Hellcats come apart at the bulkhead behind the cockpit much like the one on film that made it back to the carrier with extensive AAA damage and the fuselage ripped apart there when the tailhook caught. I don't believe this type of seperation would typically occur to a Hellcat in flight. That's my belief so you may have to find your own religion. Having said that, aluminum alloys, to a lesser extent 2024 and much more so 7075, will tear rather well once a crack in a critical spot starts and there isn't a place in the design to stop it. Thankfully we've moved on from 7075 today, though it's still puttin food on my table in the way of crack repairs. The Hellcat was 2024 (24S) and was very well designed to stop cracks.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Dunkelgrun
11-28-2005, 04:51 AM
You can knock the tail off a CR.42 with the laser-green pop guns of the I-16 Type 18, so I'm sure that almost everything else will as well.

Cheers!

SeaFireLIV
11-28-2005, 05:11 AM
Couldn`t really say. Only early 109s seem to do it alot if you pound the rear end constantly.

FlatSpinMan
11-28-2005, 07:03 AM
Am I alone in finding something puerilely amusing in this comment:

Seafire Posted:
======================
do it alot if you pound the rear end constantly.
===================

AWL_Tonedog
11-28-2005, 07:06 AM
I can add a few:

IAR80 All types.
I185
LI2
DC3
JU52
IL2 occasionally.

I seem to think that its a quick way out of Damage modelling the more unusual and lesser used planes, except the 109 of course. But then planes like the FW190, the fuel tanks are located close to that area. hit that and BOOM. Goodbye tail section and fuselage.

Cheers, Tonedog.

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Couldn`t really say. Only early 109s seem to do it alot if you pound the rear end constantly.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

nakamura_kenji
11-28-2005, 07:41 AM
ki-100-I-ko was eveolution ki-61-II with radial engine after ki-61-I-tei, ki-61 series have wood tail section i no sure dm wood better than orignal metal. ki-61-I-ko/otsu/hei all metal ^_^

martin255
11-28-2005, 07:46 AM
I fly mostly P38 and i found its gun jamms easyly and the rngines are vounrable thus my wing boes by by...an Bf110's are cool fighterbombers..And IL2?NO!I got a flack right in the tail and landed safe..

LEBillfish
11-28-2005, 07:58 AM
The Ki-43 was well known for being "halved"....However, that was a result of hitting the Oxygen bottles roughly midway in the fusalage.

Personally........There is one major shortfall with both DM's and FM's here.......That being "Published Numbers & Diagrams".

I can think of no reason to not post sim plane performance numbers with a statement as to why they "cannot be" spot on.........In kind posting diagrams/Hitbox pictures of DM's and their resulting indications based on round taken.

Now some would claim that gives folks an unfair advantage........Not at all in that all sides knew other planes strengths and weaknesses to a great degree.........More importantly I would think it unreasonable to any degree to think Oleg and the 1c team are "experts" on ""every"" plane ever made....Surpassing many, sure, yet upon seeing models those that do know better could chime in and state...."no, consider this based on these actual photo's/drawings".

Too late to do this with IL2.........from 1c I'd say yes, yet aren't some here talking of picking up the series?.

Something to consider.

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
The Ki-43 was well known for being "halved"....However, that was a result of hitting the Oxygen bottles roughly midway in the fusalage.

Personally........There is one major shortfall with both DM's and FM's here.......That being "Published Numbers & Diagrams".

I can think of no reason to not post sim plane performance numbers with a statement as to why they "cannot be" spot on.........In kind posting diagrams/Hitbox pictures of DM's and their resulting indications based on round taken.

Now some would claim that gives folks an unfair advantage........Not at all in that all sides knew other planes strengths and weaknesses to a great degree.........More importantly I would think it unreasonable to any degree to think Oleg and the 1c team are "experts" on ""every"" plane ever made....Surpassing many, sure, yet upon seeing models those that do know better could chime in and state...."no, consider this based on these actual photo's/drawings".

Too late to do this with IL2.........from 1c I'd say yes, yet aren't some here talking of picking up the series?.

Something to consider.

Agreed. However, that would undermine the stance of "my data is better than your data, be sure".

You can pretty much be certain that we will never see that sort of stuff. Sad really.

SeaFireLIV
11-28-2005, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Couldn`t really say. Only early 109s seem to do it alot if you pound the rear end constantly.

Yes, yes. It occurred to me how the sentence could be construed, but y`know this forum is filled with too many people who just think too hard and then you see things were nothing was meant or indicated.

I truly cannot be bothered in dotting my `i`s and crossing my `t`s every time I post in the fear that someone may think I`m racist or gay or a fascist or communist...

I can`t help what runs through some of your minds...
You guys really must stop thinking so hard. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Airmail109
11-28-2005, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Couldn`t really say. Only early 109s seem to do it alot if you pound the rear end constantly.

Yes, yes. It occurred to me how the sentence could be construed, but y`know this forum is filled with too many people who just think too hard and then you see things were nothing was meant or indicated.

I truly cannot be bothered in dotting my `i`s and crossing my `t`s every time I post in the fear that someone may think I`m racist or gay or a fascist or communist...

I can`t help what runs through some of your minds...
You guys really must stop thinking so hard. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One very large country should starting thinking a bit harder.

VW-IceFire
11-28-2005, 03:28 PM
Interesting comments for sure.

@Stigler: It was infact the Typhoon with the tail falling off problem which meant a dive speed restriction for Typhoons. I can't remmeber the exact value but it was around 400mph as a limit. This was a problem in the elevator design rather than a structural issue (although the finplate reinforcements were fitted for pilot confidence reasons throughout production).

The Tempest had one of the highest dive limit restrictions of any Allied fighter and did not have the same issue. Its a common mistake and the two aircraft are frequently mistaken for each other so no skin off your nose a'tall.

Indeed I haven't heard much myself either regarding taking the tail straight off.

@Viper: Its a shame the quality on the shots isn't better but they are a fair indication. To my understanding, and you can correct this, the Blenhiem and Spitfire images were tests where the shell was detonated inside the fuselage and that under combat conditions this was not always the case (still an indication of what possibly would happen should the shell explode correctly at the right moment).

@Seafire: I do not mean when you sit behind someone and fire half of your ammo capacity into them...I'm taking 5 rounds or less of 20mm fire or a single round of 30mm fire. It stands to reason, based on Viper's shots that a single 30mm HE round could do the job...so the question is can a very small number of 20mm shells do the same?

@Billfish: I can understand the Ki-43, being lightly construted, but even in that instance it seems it needs a bit of help being de-tailed with something exploding to generate said circumstance.

So we shall revise the list:

1) P-38
2) P-47
3) Bf-109 (most or all models)
4) B-25 (yes, its true)
5) A-20G
6) Ki-100-I-Ko
7) Ki-61 (all models)
8) IAR80
9) I185
10) LI-2
11) DC-3
12) Ju-52
13) IL-2
14) Ki-43 (probably historical)
14) F6F Hellcat

My reason for posting this thread has been building for a while but it was prompted last night when I was flying online and lost my tail several times.

Ki-100-Ko - Hit by Yak-3P (maybe not surprising) happened quickly with a short burst from dead 6 o'clock
B-25J - Hit by several rounds of 20mm from a FW190D-9 from different distances and angles
P-47D (Late) - HIt by several rounds (I didn't count) of 20mm fire from a FW190D-9 who was trailing at about 400m.
Ki-100-Ko - Hit by single 40mm Bofors round.
Ki-61-Otsu - Hit by small number of .50cal rounds from a Hellcat at dead 6 and close range.

I've almost completely stopped flying the P-38 due to the tail shedding but it seems that I cannot escape it.

I haven't had it happen to me in a 109 yet (as I don't fly them as much) but I've done it to others. Sometimes you expect it to happen as you just seriously nailed them...but other times I feel sorry. The A-20G is another...I was flying a FW190A-4 and came in behind a A-20, a short tap on the guns (less than a second) and the tail had detached.

This seems to be largely new for 4.02. Is this more accurate or less accurate?

Xiolablu3
11-28-2005, 06:21 PM
I htink all different aircraft have their own 'quirks'. For example, I'm sure that the Hurrian and SPit are the only ones to have the rev limiter knocked off. (I think this is whats happening?)

When the engine revs up massively and if you dont throttle down, it seizes.
This doesnt seem to happen on any other aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fordfan25
11-28-2005, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
Am I alone in finding something puerilely amusing in this comment:

Seafire Posted:
======================
do it alot if you pound the rear end constantly.
===================

HAY!! i think i just found my new sig LMAO

fordfan25
11-28-2005, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Couldn`t really say. Only early 109s seem to do it alot if you pound the rear end constantly.

Yes, yes. It occurred to me how the sentence could be construed, but y`know this forum is filled with too many people who just think too hard and then you see things were nothing was meant or indicated.

I truly cannot be bothered in dotting my `i`s and crossing my `t`s every time I post in the fear that someone may think I`m racist or gay or a fascist or communist...

I can`t help what runs through some of your minds...
You guys really must stop thinking so hard. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One very large country should starting thinking a bit harder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i know a whole continent who could use those very words.

ImpStarDuece
11-28-2005, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Interesting comments for sure.

@Stigler: It was infact the Typhoon with the tail falling off problem which meant a dive speed restriction for Typhoons. I can't remmeber the exact value but it was around 400mph as a limit. This was a problem in the elevator design rather than a structural issue (although the finplate reinforcements were fitted for pilot confidence reasons throughout production).



Ice- there was a dive limit placed on the Typhoon after the initial two accidents, but I can't rermember the limit off the top of my head. However, after structural testing showed that the airframes were able to handle 500mph pull-outs without problems, the limitation was eventually abolished. The tests involved pilots diving to 450 mph or more and then deliberately yawing the airplane violently, pitching the nose sharply up or rolling it out into a turn. It would of taken real guts to get up in an airframe that was suspect and then try and push its limits.

Hawker initially fitted two steel bands to the tail joint as an emergency measure, and then a more 'refined' modification involving reinforcing the internal structure and adding external 'fishplates' to the fue****e, mostly because the A&AEE and ADFU recommended the changes. There was buckling in older airframes, but there were no tail shedding incidents recorded with airframes produced after the 3rd production batch. Most of the accidents in the 1944 period were of older airframes that had not had modifications to the tailplane or elevators, nor had the new mounting brace for the Sabre fitted.

Interestingly, the final two production batches of the Typhoon were fitted with Tempest type tailplanes as standard. However, they lacked the characteristic triangular tail fillet that was so obvious on the Tempest. The tailplanes were moved foward sligthly and the elevator mass balances again reworked.

VW-IceFire
11-29-2005, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Interesting comments for sure.

@Stigler: It was infact the Typhoon with the tail falling off problem which meant a dive speed restriction for Typhoons. I can't remmeber the exact value but it was around 400mph as a limit. This was a problem in the elevator design rather than a structural issue (although the finplate reinforcements were fitted for pilot confidence reasons throughout production).



Ice- there was a dive limit placed on the Typhoon after the initial two accidents, but I can't rermember the limit off the top of my head. However, after structural testing showed that the airframes were able to handle 500mph pull-outs without problems, the limitation was eventually abolished. The tests involved pilots diving to 450 mph or more and then deliberately yawing the airplane violently, pitching the nose sharply up or rolling it out into a turn. It would of taken real guts to get up in an airframe that was suspect and then try and push its limits.

Hawker initially fitted two steel bands to the tail joint as an emergency measure, and then a more 'refined' modification involving reinforcing the internal structure and adding external 'fishplates' to the fue****e, mostly because the A&AEE and ADFU recommended the changes. There was buckling in older airframes, but there were no tail shedding incidents recorded with airframes produced after the 3rd production batch. Most of the accidents in the 1944 period were of older airframes that had not had modifications to the tailplane or elevators, nor had the new mounting brace for the Sabre fitted.

Interestingly, the final two production batches of the Typhoon were fitted with Tempest type tailplanes as standard. However, they lacked the characteristic triangular tail fillet that was so obvious on the Tempest. The tailplanes were moved foward sligthly and the elevator mass balances again reworked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting...some of that I did not know! I'll add it to my Tempest knowledge center of my brain http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pirschjaeger
11-29-2005, 07:36 PM
I would expect the chances of a plane losing it's tail should be relavent to the position of the attack. I've seen planes lose their tails when getting hits from 6 o'clock. That doesn't seem to make much sense. My opinion would be "possible but not likely".

If a plane is hit from an angle, let's say its 4 o'clock, it would be much more likely, especially if the plane has any pressure on the elevators like that of a turn or loop.

But losing a tail when the plane is attacked from its 6 while its flying straight and level is, IMHO, very highly unlikely.

BTW, I'm not complaining about this sim's DM. I'm fully aware Oleg is ahead of the pc industry.

Fritz