PDA

View Full Version : The P-38 damage model



Pages : [1] 2

Persecutor_352
10-30-2005, 09:58 AM
I don't post in these forums much ... and never whine about things. But I simply *must* comment on the P-38 damage model.

Oleg, I hope you're reading this, because it is really addressed to you. First, let me acknowledge that the 4.02m patch absolutely changed things for the better. I didn't care much for the damage model impact brought by 4.01m. You've improved things greatly, adding a lot to the playability of the simulation.

However, the P-38 damage model is simply unacceptable. We fly regularly in the Clash of Titans scenario. One shot from a FW-190 or Bf-109 to the tail structure of the Lightening results in the removal of both tail structures and the horizontal stabilizer. There is no way that can be historically accurate, but even if it is, the usability and playability of the aircraft has been rendered NIL.

You'll be doing your simulator a great service by carefully examining the damage model of the Lightning and correcting it.

Thanks for listening, and

Blue Skies

Archangel2980
10-30-2005, 10:13 AM
http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif Excellent the way it should be.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-30-2005, 10:52 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

More seriously, I've been flying the P38 a lot since 4.02 and I don't think it's DM is weak at all.

In fact, it's been flying perfectly with no rudders etc (ask Pingu - it was in his co-op)

Whether the tail comes off with 1 30mm hit, I don't know. But if it did, I wouldn't say it was entirely incorrect.

Ta,
norris

Nubarus
10-30-2005, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Whether the tail comes off with 1 30mm hit, I don't know. But if it did, I wouldn't say it was entirely incorrect.

Where did he say with a 30mm hit?

I just tested it and a single 20mm HE round to either of the tail ends rips off both tail ends and horizontal stabilizer.

3.JG51_BigBear
10-30-2005, 11:00 AM
What you're seeing could just be a limitation in the damage model. I'd bet a 30MM round could disable the tail of a P-38. Instead of showing a shredded up tail or even partial tail loss when hit, the damage model may have been created just to show a total loss when the plane suffered severe damage to the tail. If that's the case I doubt it will ever be fixed because a ton of time go into making those models. I don't fly the plane that much, are there times when only part of the tail shows damage?

NorrisMcWhirter
10-30-2005, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Whether the tail comes off with 1 30mm hit, I don't know. But if it did, I wouldn't say it was entirely incorrect.

Where did he say with a 30mm hit?

I just tested it and a single 20mm HE round to either of the tail ends rips off both tail ends and horizontal stabilizer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He didn't - I was speculating.

Well, your research is interesting if it's true because I know I've been hit in the tail with 20mm and not lost it with a few hits.

If there is a problem, however, while Oleg is fixing it, he can take a butchers at the 190 fuel leak gag.

Ta,
Norris

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 11:17 AM
the tail is probably too weak, and i think in that coop norris ended up with no rudders, but u had the horizontal stabilzer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
10-30-2005, 11:27 AM
That's what I said, no rudders. Non detrimental to how it handled, either.

Try getting a pinhole in a 190 wing for comparison.

Or losing the rudder.

Ta,
Norris

VF-2_John_Banks
10-30-2005, 12:49 PM
What i noticed is, that the P-38 now likes to loose its elevator control due to enemy fire. That happened before too of course, but since 4.02, it happens so often and on a regular bases that you really start to wonder.
It's just weird that all planes, with all kinds of ammo seem to be able to shoot up the elevator control cables with every single burst placed just somewhere near the tail section.

I have flown alot of planes online but never did i loose the elevator as often as i did in the P-38. And the reason here can't be the size of the tail assembly. Control cables are control cables and the P-38 didn't use thicker or more cables AFAIK. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
10-30-2005, 02:24 PM
The P-38 control surfaces are WAY WAY too easy to knock out. Many times I have been hit by 1 20MM to have 2-3 surfaces knocked out and I am suddenly flying an unguided missile. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Here is some photographs I think people will find interesting.

Here are 3! 20MM round impacts on the tail of a P-38. It would only take 1 hit in IL2 to REMOVE the tail.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture14.jpg

As you see, the damage is bad but not even CLOSE to removing the tail.

The wing was also very strong. Want proof? Fine.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture21.jpg

A telephone pole strike. Lol. Im sure many of you will contest the validity of that photo, or call it a one time thing, but it happened more then 1 time. Check this one out.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture21.jpg

Before you say that happened on the ground, no P-38's EVER shared an airfield with a Halifax. Were did it pick up the tail section?

And what about the elivator being weak? I Lol at that too.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture28.jpg

Mid-air head on with a BF-190, detached the elivator on one side, but the pilot still flew her home. One time thing? Think again!!!!

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture37.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture32.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture29.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture25.jpg

I have many many more photo's of P-38's that have taken a MASSIVE beating and made it home. How many photo's of FW-190's taking similar damage are there? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
10-30-2005, 03:21 PM
Ah well - a few photos and that's proof beyond doubt.

Let's ignore the fact that P38s must have been lost to rifle calibre Japanese mg fire in the Pacific theatre...

Oleg - make P38 invunerable to any projectiles; none could ever have been shot down based on this undeniable display of toughness.


Ta,
Norris

faustnik
10-30-2005, 03:26 PM
Norris,

They are asking that a specific issue for the P-38 DM be looked at, the control loss probablility. Why don't you make some specific tests? You can't claim it not an issue after flying a couple COOPs.

Gibbage1
10-30-2005, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Let's ignore the fact that P38s must have been lost to rifle calibre Japanese mg fire in the Pacific theatre...



Lets ignore the fact that an Appache helicopter, one of the most armored aircraft in flight, was taken down by an almost 100 year old farmers rifle and a single bullet. Anything is possible. Weather its the norm or the extreme case is the point.

Aircraft like the B-17, P-47, P-38 and Fw-190 had a very clear reputation during WWII for being VERY damage resistant. In IL2 it seems only the FW-190 is VERY damage resistant (with the exception of its recent flamability) and all the others have had a glass chin since its inclusion into IL2. Also all 3, the B-17, P-47 and P-38 have many many photographs of this legendary resistance to damage. So far I have not seen anyone post pics of damaged FW-190's that made it back.

Zyzbot
10-30-2005, 07:51 PM
I don't think that Apache was taken down by a farmer's rifle. This link shows the Apache and a round removed from it.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/apache1.asp

FritzGryphon
10-30-2005, 08:13 PM
That 'farmer rifle' thing always gave me a laugh. The propegandists have no clue if the claims actually make sense or not (and unfortunately, neither does their audience).

1 rifle round shooting down a helo with two engines, either of which can fly it. Two crew, either of which can pilot it. And protection, even on the glass, that would stop that tiny little projectile, especially at the ridiculous range the 'farmer' (actor) described.

I remember another case, I don't think it was in Iraq, though. A militant group shot down a transport helo, and claimed something like 40 Americans killed. The helo couldn't even carry half that many. They may as well claim they have captured GW Bush. Anyway, off topic.

---------------

I tried out shooting the horizontal stabilizer of the P-38 in a ground test.

Using the cannon on the G4M, it takes at least 4 or 5 hits to blow it off. Usually twice that, since the elevator is in the way.

Oddly enough, the little stabilizers on the sides (the little nubs outboard the rudders) can take even more hits; they are very durable.

The fuselages and stabilizers don't seem any more or less durable than other planes I've tried. If anything, I found it hard to blow off the horiz. stab, simply because it's so skinny.

On the other hand, the P-38 only has one main horizontal stab, whereas other planes have two. This could make it more succeptible to catastrophic failure.

Daiichidoku
10-30-2005, 08:32 PM
gibbage, i dont have a scanner...

but if you can find one...

i know squadron/signal's fw190 in action features a shot of an anton with a BIG-a s s hole blown about midway through the side of the fuselage, that landed safely...quite impressive

ok, thats only one...

faustnik
10-30-2005, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

So far I have not seen anyone post pics of damaged FW-190's that made it back.

Here are a couple damaged in the air with RTB:

Wing hits:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/WingHits.jpg

Collision with Spitfire:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Collision.jpg

Tail section hits:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/TailHit.jpg

BSS_CUDA
10-30-2005, 10:05 PM
cmon faust, Gib has ya beat he had 7 pics and you only had 3, so the 38 has to be tougher http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I do question the ease of loss of tail controls in the 38, Gib correct me if I'm wrong but werent the 38 tail controls redundant? running down both booms? if thats the case it should be MUCH tough to take out the conrols unless you blow the elevator clear off. I've found the from dead 6 the 38 can take a hell of a beating its when you expose yourself in a turn that a sinlge 20mm can blow your plane in half from 1000 yards, and yes i've had it happen to me several times http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Mad_Moses
10-30-2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Persecutor_352:

However, the P-38 damage model is simply unacceptable. We fly regularly in the Clash of Titans scenario. One shot from a FW-190 or Bf-109 to the tail structure of the Lightening results in the removal of both tail structures and the horizontal stabilizer. There is no way that can be historically accurate, but even if it is, the usability and playability of the aircraft has been rendered NIL.

Well.... I have found the opposite to be true for me.

Flying German aircraft against the P-38, mostly on the War Clouds server, I have found the P-38 to be about the toughest plane to bring down out of all the Allied planes. Maybe the P-63 slightly tougher because it's a smaller target.

The P-38s are very tough directly from the rear. On one occasion I put 46 20mm rounds into one directly from the rear before I ran out of ammo. I actually blew one of his engines right off its mount but he still was able to fly home.

On the other hand I have been able on a couple occasions to blow their tail boom off when with a single brood side (deflection) shot when, but you can take off a wing off any plane (even with .50 cal) with a brood side shot.

I would suggest not opening yourself up for a deflection shots on the rear of your plane when all possible. The P-38L will out dive and out climb (shallow climb) anything the Germans have. Most guys try to fly the 38 like a turn fighter which is a death sentence considering how big a target it is and the large caliber weapon it is facing.

Regards,
MM

Gibbage1
10-31-2005, 01:03 AM
Mear flesh wounds Faust, be sure!!!

I forgot to post this one of the Halifax collision.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture23.jpg

And in response too your "collision with Spitfire" pic, clipping a wing is not all that bad.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture31.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture20.jpg

Ever see a P-38 with 3 props?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture18.jpg

Some P-38 pilots tended to get very close to the ground during straifing runs.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture39.jpg

Telephone poles were more of a hazzard then the Luftwaffe!

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture34.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture30.jpg

Even trees try and take down P-38's!

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture33.jpg

So far I have shown 18 pics of P-38's that have taken some EXTREME damage and still made it home. Faust shows 3 lightly damaged FW pics. Who's winnin? ME!!! I mean the P-38. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I have quite a few more.

CUJO_1970
10-31-2005, 02:17 AM
Here's another picture of a (slightly) damaged P-38:


http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/pictures/P-38%2042-12928%202.JPG

nakamura_kenji
10-31-2005, 02:37 AM
ready much hard shoot down find incredible hard catch because very much fast. have fight p-38 online few time have hit number time tail with 20mm little effect other have hit rudder or elevator fall off number hit after it seem much hit and miss.

il-2 no great simulate damage still wait on ki-61-I-hei to get fire extingusher and better self seal tank and rid 1 hit oil wind screen >_<

WOLFMondo
10-31-2005, 06:38 AM
I think the P38's tail booms are a little too weak but when I fire at one I do deliberaly go for them, there the weakest part of the structure. Getting 10-15 20mm's in the tail I would expect it to break off.

In the same respect I've rammed planes before (not deliberaly but in headons) in a P38 and lost and engine but survived.

Gibbage, I guess the luftwaffe had better things to do than photograph bust up planeshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, repairing them would be my guess.

VF-2_John_Banks
10-31-2005, 09:09 AM
Gibbage, can you please give me the names of the books you have taken these photographs from?
I would like to get them. Didn't know that there are books soley about battle damage and such.

BlackStar2000
10-31-2005, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Here's another picture of a (slightly) damaged P-38:


http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/pictures/P-38%2042-12928%202.JPG

Cmon that almost nothing, still good to fly back home base. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

JtD
10-31-2005, 09:37 AM
Interesting pictures, bad tone.

faustnik
10-31-2005, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Gibbage, I guess the luftwaffe had better things to do than photograph bust up planeshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, repairing them would be my guess.

There are more pictures of damaged Fw190s available, but, some are difficult to scan out of expensive books. Anyway, I just wanted to show Gibbage that pics of damaged Fw190s that had RTB'd do exist.

****************

On the initial subject of P-38 DM, does anyone have any tracks? To properly test:

- Set to arcade mode by opening the conf.ini file and finding the line "arcade=0" and set to "arcade=1".

- In QMB select an a/c with as few of the test weapon as possible, ie. for Mg151 use Bg109, for Hispano use P-38, for ShVak use Yak, for .50 use P-39. Set four enemy a/c to "rookie" with "empty" for loadout.

- Start recording an ntrack at mission start.

- Fire at very specific locations on the target a/c.

- Play the track and not damage effects.

- Save tracks of strange DM behavior. Include historical quotes and tests outlining how you think the DM effect should be. Send everything to 1C using the pf@1c.ru.

HayateAce
10-31-2005, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
That 'farmer rifle' thing always gave me a laugh. The propegandists have no clue if the claims actually make sense or not (and unfortunately, neither does their audience).

1 rifle round shooting down a helo with two engines, either of which can fly it. Two crew, either of which can pilot it. And protection, even on the glass, that would stop that tiny little projectile, especially at the ridiculous range the 'farmer' (actor) described.

I remember another case, I don't think it was in Iraq, though. A militant group shot down a transport helo, and claimed something like 40 Americans killed. The helo couldn't even carry half that many. They may as well claim they have captured GW Bush. Anyway, off topic.

---------------

I tried out shooting the horizontal stabilizer of the P-38 in a ground test.

Using the cannon on the G4M, it takes at least 4 or 5 hits to blow it off. Usually twice that, since the elevator is in the way.

Oddly enough, the little stabilizers on the sides (the little nubs outboard the rudders) can take even more hits; they are very durable.

The fuselages and stabilizers don't seem any more or less durable than other planes I've tried. If anything, I found it hard to blow off the horiz. stab, simply because it's so skinny.

On the other hand, the P-38 only has one main horizontal stab, whereas other planes have two. This could make it more succeptible to catastrophic failure.

What does "Using the cannon on the G4M" to shoot the P38 have anything to do with the overly done damage the P38 takes from 190s and 109s?

Stafroty
10-31-2005, 10:06 AM
One Finnish 109 got hit by russian P39 with its 37mm cannon, at tail fuselage section, 109 had to disengage and he went for landing, as soon as he touched ground, and speed dropped down enought thta wings didnt anymore suppert weight of the plane, tail section collapsed, yet it was succesful landing. I havent seen picture of it, not sure if there is any. anyone?

p1ngu666
10-31-2005, 11:35 AM
its easy to snap a p38 if u hit it at a angle

shame control cable hits happen so often in the aircraft, i dont think its very correct http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

shame we cant lose trim cables, and have the controls loose effectiveness from a trapped cable or something..

NorrisMcWhirter
10-31-2005, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Norris,

They are asking that a specific issue for the P-38 DM be looked at, the control loss probablility. Why don't you make some specific tests? You can't claim it not an issue after flying a couple COOPs.

Only it's not a 'couple of co-ops' as you like to put it. But, nice try to undermine my position http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've actually been flying the P38 a lot since 4.02 (both online but, more importantly, exclusively in offline campaigns) and I'm often surprised by the amount of damage it will take from aircraft and from ground fire (and that's admittedly subjectively noting the amount of 'thuds' vs 'critical damage' being received).

Of course, what I don't know is whether it's any weaker (or stronger) than it was before but I really don't think I would consider it to be "weak".

Anyway, since you're the expert on DMs, why don't you repeat some of your scientific experiments and put me straight on it?

Ta,
Norris

faustnik
10-31-2005, 01:42 PM
Norris,

I'm not trying to undermine your position, just pointing out that evaluating the DMs takes some careful consideration.

I'm looking at another important DM issue right now, so, I'll let someone else take this one.

Gibbage1
10-31-2005, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
its easy to snap a p38 if u hit it at a angle

shame control cable hits happen so often in the aircraft, i dont think its very correct http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

shame we cant lose trim cables, and have the controls loose effectiveness from a trapped cable or something..

There is a pilot report of a TBF mission I think at Midway. 8 TBF's went out, only 1 came back. He flew on trim only. All other controles were shot out!

Last night in a coop, I lost Rudder and elivator in an IL2. That would spell death in ANY other aircraft, but not only did I LAND the stricken aircraft, but I lines up and shot down a Fw-200!!! How is this even possible? Ping is my whitness. I made a PERFECT landing using only thrittle and flaps to change pitch. =O

The P-38 DM is just way way too random. Some times I get hit once and loose all my controles. Sometimes I can have a FW chewing on my rudder with a few hundred rounds of 20MM. but the rudder and elivator are WAY WAY too delicate in the P-38. I would say 80% of the time I get shot down is due to the loss of controle surfaces. If you fly the P-38 online, you will QUICKLY find that out. THATS my gripe. The pics show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the wings and tail section ARE tough. I mean a telephone pole, 3 mid air collisions, a tree!!! I am still waiting to see pics of equally damaged aircraft making it home. I have seen some MESSED up Ju-87 pics, B-17 pics, and P-47 pics, but nothing else that compaires to this stuff.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-31-2005, 01:52 PM
Yeah, you're right; only it's what definition you think 'careful evalutation' has as to whether test results are acceptable or not.

We've been over this before - if you don't have a repeatable test, the results are fairly meaningless whether they carry out that test once, ten times or one thousand times.

And, even IF someone does find out that the tail falls off, on average, after being hit by 3.54 20mm hits, who is to say that's right or wrong....?

Ahem. Anyone got documentation of a real life test to say one way or the other?

Ta,
Norris

VW-IceFire
10-31-2005, 03:09 PM
I'm doing some tests...I hope others are doing the same.

I didn't record this one but I was flying a QMB (this is when I first noticed it) flying a A6M3 VS P-38J and I managed to get a full out fuel leak (the thick black stuff not the thin streak) with the Zero's 7.7mm machine guns at 600 meters (roughly). I don't think thats right...I replicated the test after that and seem to get it fairly frequently (although I haven't been quite as lucky). I tested against other types of targets just to be sure...Yaks, Mustangs, Hellcats, Corsairs, P-47s, and so far none have had the same effect.

Corsairs seem a bit weak too but not like this.

MEGILE
10-31-2005, 03:21 PM
The p-38 is a big target.. I doubt it was a single 20mm which has taken out your controls...
A good burst can remove it.. but often p-38s can keep going and going.

MEGILE
10-31-2005, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

who is to say that's right or wrong....?


hmm.. you don't have that sentiment when discussing speed loss when 190s take hits in the wings...

While no one can say for sure.. we can make comparisons between planes...
if one plane takes 1 20mm hit to remove the tail, and another takes 5 20mm hits... should this be occurring. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Case in point, the P-47D27... why does its tail have a habbit of coming off, when so many other planes don't have this weakness... yet there is no data to suggest it should have a weak tail relative to other fighters.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-31-2005, 04:49 PM
So you're saying that it's wrong for the P47's tail to come off (as other aircraft don't seem to suffer the same problem..or quite so badly) but it's OK for my 'sentiment' to be 'incorrect' regarding the 190 suffering readily from minor wing damage when there is no credible source of information to suggest that this was the case?

All I've seen is that it was susceptible to exploding ammo stores in the wing - something that it clearly doesn't suffer from...and probably should.

I acknowledge your point but the trouble is that I've not seen the P38 lose it's tail with 1 20mm hit...nor the P47. However, I would agree that the P47 appears to be relatively weak in the tail department. I suppose one question would be whether this P47 "problem" is just because of the way certain planes have their 3D/DM models 'constructed'? For example, you don't often see a Spitfire losing it's tail section....

But that's the P47 and 190 (and Spitfire)...the P38 is the subject and, after yet another evening of ground pounding with it, I still haven't changed my opinion that it is no worse than anything else with respect to instances of control loss or items falling off when hit with flak or enemy aircraft guns. Perhaps I ought to fly against these 'uber' Japanese mgs because the LW and their AA boys just don't appear to cut the mustard in the same manner.

Ta,
Norris

geetarman
10-31-2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Yeah, you're right; only it's what definition you think 'careful evalutation' has as to whether test results are acceptable or not.

We've been over this before - if you don't have a repeatable test, the results are fairly meaningless whether they carry out that test once, ten times or one thousand times.

And, even IF someone does find out that the tail falls off, on average, after being hit by 3.54 20mm hits, who is to say that's right or wrong....?

Ahem. Anyone got documentation of a real life test to say one way or the other?

Ta,
Norris

Kinda like your gripes about the 4.02 190

NorrisMcWhirter
10-31-2005, 05:15 PM
Already responded to....try reading.

Ta,
Norris

Gwalker70
11-01-2005, 12:02 AM
the problem I see with the 38 is... one little burst and the tail section flies off like it was hit with a 105 shell theres no middle or low ground its like BAM your whole freaking tail section is gone

anarchy52
11-01-2005, 07:01 AM
P-38 whiners will never stop until P-38 becomes:
- faster then 190D9
- turn better then 109
- climb better then 109K
- resistant to cannon damage

Issues 1,2,3 have been addressed in recent patches.

BSS_CUDA
11-01-2005, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
P-38 whiners will never stop until P-38 becomes:
- faster then 190D9
- turn better then 109
- climb better then 109K
- resistant to cannon damage

Issues 1,2,3 have been addressed in recent patches.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

yep were gonna whine this all the ways to the top, we've been taking Luftwhiner lessons and reading your 109 and 190 threads. but we have a long way to go to be the supreme whiners that you've become. get a life

faster then 190D9 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif if this was addressed in a recent patch I'm not aware of it the D9 is still faster than a 38 and by the way why is the G6/AS faster then a 38??

turn better then 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif the 38 will out turn the K ONLY the G2 will fly circles around it.

climb better then 109K http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif heh nothing climbs better than the K so dont even try to go there

resistant to cannon damage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif just want an accurate DM just like your 190 pilots do

you might wish to have your fact right before you spout off next time, so when you pull your head out to take a breath try to looking at things more objectivly instead of letting your luftwhiner habits showing through

Chadburn
11-01-2005, 08:44 AM
Nubarus said:
I just tested it and a single 20mm HE round to either of the tail ends rips off both tail ends and horizontal stabilizer.

Can you please post a track. If not, can you please explain how to squeeze off a single 20mm round so I can test it myself. Thanks.

It definitely seems buggy if a single 20mm round is that devastating.

And I can understand the frustration with the loss of controls issue. The 109 used to always lose controls from mg fire - sometimes at long range - with just a few rounds. Rewards too many spray and pray players.

Nubarus
11-01-2005, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Nubarus said:
I just tested it and a single 20mm HE round to either of the tail ends rips off both tail ends and horizontal stabilizer.

Can you please post a track. If not, can you please explain how to squeeze off a single 20mm round so I can test it myself. Thanks.

It definitely seems buggy if a single 20mm round is that devastating.

And I can understand the frustration with the loss of controls issue. The 109 used to always lose controls from mg fire - sometimes at long range - with just a few rounds. Rewards too many spray and pray players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I flew several quick missions against 4 Ace AI P38's and flew a Bf109G6/AS and only used the 20mm cannon in short bursts.
Several kills where with multiple hits and a few with the 1 hit wonder shot.

If you hit the tail section right in front of the tail fin with a 20mm HE round both tail fins and stabilizer break up in small fragments and the P38 spins towards the ground.

Nubarus
11-01-2005, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
P-38 whiners will never stop until P-38 becomes:
- faster then 190D9
- turn better then 109
- climb better then 109K
- resistant to cannon damage

Issues 1,2,3 have been addressed in recent patches.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

HayateAce
11-01-2005, 09:41 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Buzzsaw-
11-01-2005, 10:02 AM
Salute

While I understand the enthusiasm of the P-38 fans, there is no way individual twin booms would each be as strong as a single engined aircraft tail structure.

While they are intact, yes, TOGETHER they do as good a job of supporting the frame against the stresses of flight, but individually as far as being resistant to bullet impacts, they cannot be compared.

All you have to do is look at diagrams of the boom structures, and you can see they are comprised of a set of beams and spars which are not the equivalent of a standard single engine aircraft's rear tail fuselage. It's a simple matter of mass. For each boom to be as strong as a single engined fighters rear tail structure, the aircraft would have to pay too much of a weight penalty. Instead, we have two structures, when integrated, which share the loads imposed, but when examined separately, do not individually have the strength of a single fuselage. Thus when impacted by high velocity rounds, they are going to fail sooner.

Further to that, it only takes one boom being destroyed for the integrity of the airframe to be compromised, and the result to be catastrophic for the entire aircraft.

Yes, we see the pictures of aircraft which survived some collisions, with one boom severed, but those aircraft were extremely fortunate. You can be sure there were no maneuvers attempted with that damage.

p1ngu666
11-01-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
P-38 whiners will never stop until P-38 becomes:
- faster then 190D9
- turn better then 109
- climb better then 109K
- resistant to cannon damage

Issues 1,2,3 have been addressed in recent patches.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/GilGrissomCSI/potter_o_rly_owl.jpg

Bremspropeller
11-01-2005, 11:08 AM
Would be interesting to compare the figures of those a/c that survived these Mid-Airs to those that didn't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Chadburn
11-01-2005, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Nubarus:

I flew several quick missions against 4 Ace AI P38's and flew a Bf109G6/AS and only used the 20mm cannon in short bursts.
Several kills where with multiple hits and a few with the 1 hit wonder shot.

If you hit the tail section right in front of the tail fin with a 20mm HE round both tail fins and stabilizer break up in small fragments and the P38 spins towards the ground.

Thanks Nubarus. I'll give that a try and also against some friendly a/c as well.

anarchy52
11-01-2005, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
P-38 whiners will never stop until P-38 becomes:
- faster then 190D9
- turn better then 109
- climb better then 109K
- resistant to cannon damage

Issues 1,2,3 have been addressed in recent patches.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

turn better then 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif the 38 will out turn the K ONLY the G2 will fly circles around it.

climb better then 109K http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif heh nothing climbs better than the K so dont even try to go there

resistant to cannon damage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif just want an accurate DM just like your 190 pilots do
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-38 has improved drastically from it's humble begining in FB. No, I don't think it's faster then D9 (similar perhaps @ SL, but faster...hardly). It certainly shouldn't be able to outclimb a K4. Or outturn any 109...probably not even K4 but ...I won't go into that.

If there is one thing 38 drivers should not be complaining about it's DM.
And trust me, you don't want 190 DM on your P38.

P.S. If I were to complain about something from USAF inventory it would be P-47 engine weakness. Maybe USAF should have bought those russian inlines...

RogueSnake79
11-01-2005, 02:47 PM
Thats just it, the over-all DM seems good, its just the tail boom issue.

I've flow the P-38 online as much as anyone, and it handles damage well. But! any 20 or 30mm hits to the tail and you lose it all.

Also I've noticed it doesnt' seem to lose controls as easy with 4.02m. But that could just be luck, and not having flow 4.02 as much as 01.


And this "whiners" thing is so 90's.

PPL who post, only spit in others faces, and call them whiners, are the reason this place has lost some of its valued members.

Gibbage1
11-01-2005, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nubarus:

I flew several quick missions against 4 Ace AI P38's and flew a Bf109G6/AS and only used the 20mm cannon in short bursts.
Several kills where with multiple hits and a few with the 1 hit wonder shot.

If you hit the tail section right in front of the tail fin with a 20mm HE round both tail fins and stabilizer break up in small fragments and the P38 spins towards the ground.

Thanks Nubarus. I'll give that a try and also against some friendly a/c as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with THAT test is the AI will contenue to fly a crippled aircraft till it hits the ground, and you wont know if the controles were taken out or not. Online, the moment my aileron or elivator its hit, I bail out. That happens more times then I would like it too, and more times then any other aircraft. When I flew the P-39 and P-63 almost exclusivly, I hardly EVER lost controle cables. Again, when flying the P-38, 80-90% of my deaths are due to controle cables. About how often do 109 or 190 pilots loose controles?

VW-IceFire
11-01-2005, 04:49 PM
@Gibbage: RE: FW190 Control Cables

They seem to break with a decent level of frequency. What I mean is that on occasion you loose controls but usually not with the first shot and usually after several rounds are fired into you. I usually have no problem with this as when the enemy really hammers your plane, you'd expect to loose controls or something vital. So its not all that much of a shock.

I know what you mean...I loose the elevator control in the P-38 alot from glancing blows. That has been in for a while.

@Buzzsaw: I definately understand what you mean. The P-38 is not going to be as sturdy as the P-47 is for instance as the twin boom thing sort of breaks things up instead of remaining very solid down the center. It makes sense to me.

Nonetheless, it does appear that the P-38 is actually quite weak and flammable for some reason. Particularly with the tail. But more testing is obviously needed and I haven't seen any tracks posted...I shall do that myself as few seem to take note of doing more than just talking.

faustnik
11-01-2005, 04:55 PM
They seem to break with a decent level of frequency. What I mean is that on occasion you loose controls but usually not with the first shot and usually after several rounds are fired into you. I usually have no problem with this as when the enemy really hammers your plane, you'd expect to loose controls or something vital. So its not all that much of a shock.

once in a while you get round knocking out all your control cables????? This has happened from return for from a Pe-2 before. Must be an intersection in the wire model or something.

BTW Gibbage, did you lay out the hit boxes for the P-38 DM?

Gibbage1
11-01-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
BTW Gibbage, did you lay out the hit boxes for the P-38 DM?

Unfortunatly no. Oleg said only he and his team would model the hit boxes, so I dont know what they look like on the P-38. I did model them for the Ki-43 since it was for Ilya, not for Oleg, but again I dont know if Oleg used the ones I made. I also did the Cw-21b's. I do have examples of hit boxes from the A6M and the controle lines are thin boxes, but still about 20X thicker then what a real controle cable would be.

The P-38 is a unique case. It had two controle lines for the rudders and elivator going down both booms. I dont think IL2's engine can handle redundancy, so if one cable is hit, it in effect kills both cables. So in effect, you have twice the chance at killing the rudder or elivator. The thing is, the P-38 seems to loose those controles MORE then twice then any other aircraft, and after only glancing blows/1 hits were other aircraft you need to pound on before someone starts loosing cables.

faustnik
11-01-2005, 05:14 PM
That makes sense about the 200% chance for cable damage. That would explain a lot.

VW-IceFire
11-01-2005, 05:14 PM
Shooting P-38's (http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/ShootingP38s.TRK)

In this test I had:

1 A6M3 Zero
4 Friendly P-38J's

I flew up to the first P-38 target and I proceeded to pump MG fire into it. Several seconds later and the fuel tank is on fire.

Second P-38 I also shot only MG rounds at and within about 2 or 3 seconds the fuel tank was on fire.

The third P-38 I blew the tail off with maybe 8-12 rounds of Type 99-1 20mm cannon fire.

Then I finished the last one off and that was that really. You can see the whole track by downloading it.

For a tough and fairly sturdy aircraft the fuel tanks seem extremely vulnerable to light machine gun fire (of the 7.7mm variety).

I'm noticing some of the 4.01 DM bugs seem to have disappeared and new ones have taken their place on different aircraft.

@Faust: I have not yet had a full control failure on the FW190 in this patch. I haven't seen that since before 4.01. I have seen that more recently on the P-47 and P-38 and I know the FW190 used to have that happen all the time.

Gibbage1
11-01-2005, 05:41 PM
Japanese 20MM's are very weak in this game compaired to the other 20MM's. I will try and do some test's myself similar too the FW/P-47 engine DM test's I did since I have 2 networked computers at home.

faustnik
11-01-2005, 05:45 PM
@Faust: I have not yet had a full control failure on the FW190 in this patch. I haven't seen that since before 4.01. I have seen that more recently on the P-47 and P-38 and I know the FW190 used to have that happen all the time

Hmmm, don't know.

BfHeFwMe
11-01-2005, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

While I understand the enthusiasm of the P-38 fans, there is no way individual twin booms would each be as strong as a single engined aircraft tail structure.

While they are intact, yes, TOGETHER they do as good a job of supporting the frame against the stresses of flight, but individually as far as being resistant to bullet impacts, they cannot be compared.

All you have to do is look at diagrams of the boom structures, and you can see they are comprised of a set of beams and spars which are not the equivalent of a standard single engine aircraft's rear tail fuselage. It's a simple matter of mass. For each boom to be as strong as a single engined fighters rear tail structure, the aircraft would have to pay too much of a weight penalty. Instead, we have two structures, when integrated, which share the loads imposed, but when examined separately, do not individually have the strength of a single fuselage. Thus when impacted by high velocity rounds, they are going to fail sooner.

Further to that, it only takes one boom being destroyed for the integrity of the airframe to be compromised, and the result to be catastrophic for the entire aircraft.

Yes, we see the pictures of aircraft which survived some collisions, with one boom severed, but those aircraft were extremely fortunate. You can be sure there were no maneuvers attempted with that damage.

So your saying a single emphanage craft, with a canon hit blowing out one whole side retains enough strength to out do an intact undamaged section of a 38? Based on what? What evidence is there to support this "fact"?

If anything the 38's required greater design strenght, since it had to handle more airframe stress due to size and weight of the plane itself. If that's not enough it had to do it with a far smaller emphanage space. You can't just look at one and say, Well it looks small, so it must be weak.

Anyone know where I can read all the history and combat reports of 38 dropping from tail failures? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Professor_06
11-02-2005, 01:48 AM
Exactly Bf, Buzzsaw's argument is not evidentiary but contrived personal opinion being expressed as fact. That is defined as pretentiousness. Jeesh. What is interesting about many who post in this forum is that they talk about the Pacific Fighters Program and its 3D reps of planes as if its real.

Gibbage1
11-02-2005, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
What is interesting about many who post in this forum is that they talk about the Pacific Fighters Program and its 3D reps of planes as if its real.

They are not real, but they are advertised as an accurate representation of real aircraft. We are simply trying to make sure the product lives up too the advertising. If something is wrong, we point it out in hopes its fixed. P-38 is a very unique aircraft, and its inclusion into the sim has surfaced limitations. Like torque and stall, or the non-lack of. BTW, I now find myself trimming the P-38's aileron's in 4.02. One notch left. Oddly, the P-63 uses the same ammount of trim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Daiichidoku
11-02-2005, 09:00 AM
i always found it odd (well, ok, i didnt find it odd, but i wont go into the real reasons why i suspect this) that the never flown....actually, in the version in FB...never built 109Z, with two prop turning the same direction, had or has less torque effects than the 38 with its opposite turning props



and sorry for hijackiing, but has anyone else noticed how much torque the 50-ton P 47 has while taxiing, while featherweight types have no such problem?


if oleg truly did, as i have hear, call real lockheed and/or naca and/or usaf data on 38s "propaganda", just where did HE get his info on the 38?



i cant wait for the day a, say, swiss, or...ummm senegalese, or laotian developer make a flight sim...something where ALL tpye suck, or shine equally, with no bias and/or equally good/bad data

Professor_06
11-02-2005, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:
What is interesting about many who post in this forum is that they talk about the Pacific Fighters Program and its 3D reps of planes as if its real.

They are not real, but they are advertised as an accurate representation of real aircraft. We are simply trying to make sure the product lives up too the advertising. If something is wrong, we point it out in hopes its fixed. P-38 is a very unique aircraft, and its inclusion into the sim has surfaced limitations. Like torque and stall, or the non-lack of. BTW, I now find myself trimming the P-38's aileron's in 4.02. One notch left. Oddly, the P-63 uses the same ammount of trim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, I know that Crib. Thanks for the platitude. I can rest easy now know that you are defending the "we" in the forums. just kidding you know. I also protested loudly when the tail; came off the P47 with a couple of cannon shots and the no torque P38 was torque stalling into flat spins, etc etc etc. My point is that the some blurr the line between fantsy and reality in these forums. DM and visulas are a very complex and complicated piece of programming. I also agree that the DM to the tail boom and elevators on 38s still needs work.

The truth about P38 in the ETO on escort missions wa that the Germans would not engage them. They would dive away from fighter escort and the 38s would not pursue ( this is what ive read.)

I havent seen any LW gun camera of a 38 being shot down nor have i seen any battle damage assesments of 38s. I would love to see it if anyone has any links. One shot to the tail causing loss of all rudder and elevator is just goof though. The low level compressability issue is still there, also.

The biggest weakness in 38s IRL was mechanical failures.

Best solution is to not get shot.

JtD
11-02-2005, 12:52 PM
Buzzsaw's "opinion" is nothing more than a statement of basic mechanics. You don't get it - bad for you.

anarchy52
11-02-2005, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Professor_06:

The truth about P38 in the ETO on escort missions wa that the Germans would not engage them. They would dive away from fighter escort and the 38s would not pursue ( this is what ive read.)

I havent seen any LW gun camera of a 38 being shot down nor have i seen any battle damage assesments of 38s. I would love to see it if anyone has any links.

here's the link 190 vs p38 (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/P-38.vmw)

And the radio traffic transcript:

Focke-1: I'm gonna pwn this 38 b1atch!
38-1: n00b fireing @ me. Help me d00d
38-2: I just remembered I left the gas on...brb
38-1: You p***y...
38-2: You know what they say, You are what You eat lol
* 38-2 exits (brb)
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 rearanges the landscape but misses the P-38
Focke-2: d00d ur aim suckz. I'll get him.
Focke-1: fecking kill stealer!!!
Focke-2: newb
* P-38-1 wonders what 'airbrake' button does...
* P-38-1 pushes the button
Focke-1: WTF?!? HaXX!
Focke-2: Quick! Ram him you fool!
P-38-1: W00t!

*** The End ***

Kocur_
11-02-2005, 03:26 PM
If there is no modelling of redundancy of control cables, than P-38 is really unlucky. Sections of the booms just before tail are rather thin, so I guess any HE hit there means control cables are within range of blast, so game notes that as control damage. And with no redundancy modelling...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Buzzsaw is right about twin booms and damage: P-38 airframe was calculated for both booms to carry weight and forces from tail. P-38 to survive cutting of one of booms must have been very, very lucky, specifically not to fly in conditions to increace stresses, like high speed, any manouvering to create any gs or turbulent air.
Strenght of semi-monocoque fuselage is closely related to its diameter, so it would take less HE hits in the same section (to reduce perimeter remaining intact) to cut P-38 boom than fuslelage of single fuselage plane. And loss (cutting entirely) of one boom would mean critical failure of entire structure in vast majority of cases Im affraid.

VW-IceFire
11-02-2005, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
Exactly Bf, Buzzsaw's argument is not evidentiary but contrived personal opinion being expressed as fact. That is defined as pretentiousness. Jeesh. What is interesting about many who post in this forum is that they talk about the Pacific Fighters Program and its 3D reps of planes as if its real.
Its definately not real and not all of the real things can be simulated but I think we can all expect a simulation to make an attempt at reality. Thats what a simulation does. How they do it and exactly what is ommitted behind the scenes isn't something we have a grasp on.

But you would expect a sturdy and well protected aircraft to be sturdy and well protected and a flaming deathtrap to burn when hit sufficiently.

Of course, damage modeling, without extreme levels of supercomputer power, is essentially a subjective and guesswork based thing. Oleg, from what I understand, does quite a few calculations in his simulations to make the damage model work but its still going to be subjective and a game of balancing variables.

At this point in time, quite a few people who have tested this, feel that the variables have slid against what was a fairly robust aircraft in previous patches (minus that elevator control column).

Bartolomeo_ita
11-02-2005, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Here's another picture of a (slightly) damaged P-38:


http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/pictures/P-38%2042-12928%202.JPG

lol

Professor_06
11-02-2005, 11:47 PM
LOL...thats funny

Copperhead310th
11-02-2005, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
So you're saying that it's wrong for the P47's tail to come off (as other aircraft don't seem to suffer the same problem..or quite so badly) but it's OK for my 'sentiment' to be 'incorrect' regarding the 190 suffering readily from minor wing damage when there is no credible source of information to suggest that this was the case?

All I've seen is that it was susceptible to exploding ammo stores in the wing - something that it clearly doesn't suffer from...and probably should.

I acknowledge your point but the trouble is that I've not seen the P38 lose it's tail with 1 20mm hit...nor the P47. However, I would agree that the P47 appears to be relatively weak in the tail department. I suppose one question would be whether this P47 "problem" is just because of the way certain planes have their 3D/DM models 'constructed'? For example, you don't often see a Spitfire losing it's tail section....

But that's the P47 and 190 (and Spitfire)...the P38 is the subject and, after yet another evening of ground pounding with it, I still haven't changed my opinion that it is no worse than anything else with respect to instances of control loss or items falling off when hit with flak or enemy aircraft guns. Perhaps I ought to fly against these 'uber' Japanese mgs because the LW and their AA boys just don't appear to cut the mustard in the same manner.

Ta,
Norris
Norris,
The P-47 tail didn't start breaking off untill a few patches ago. it has NOT been doing this all along. and there is NOTHING in the structural design that would even sugest that a lucky 20mm shot would cause such a massive structural failure. In fact even some one like my slef with little knowlage in Arinautical Engenering can simply look at the cut away of a p-47 and clearly see that it is a sound design.
I doub't serously that 1 or evern 3 or 4 20mm hit's would cause the thunderbolts tail to just fall off, severd in half. And i have seen a boat load of stuff on damged p-47's. Many MANY pitures and pilot stories about them.
But NEVER & i mean NEVER have i seen 1 with it's tail shot off in the way it does in the sim.

Professor_06
11-03-2005, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Buzzsaw's "opinion" is nothing more than a statement of basic mechanics. You don't get it - bad for you.

LOL you crack me up... well an "F" for the day for you. The Buzzsaw argument is based on the conjecture that the two booms of the 38 are half the strength of a single fuselage plane based on presumption equal mass.. Ok here are some facts

The max takeoff weight of a FW190 is about 10,000lbs.

The max takeoff weight of a P38J is about 20,000lbs

Do your math. I trust you made it out of the 2nd grade. Yes your right, the P38 has twice the max takeoff mass/weight of a "regular" single seat fighter. Hee hee you are funny. Basic mechanics. Really LOFL. You dont have a clue.

GR142_Astro
11-03-2005, 12:34 AM
Perhaps olegster made the hitboxes bigger for the tail booms. It seems it used to be pretty darn hard to hit the tail booms. Small targets if you think about it.

Gibbage1
11-03-2005, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Perhaps olegster made the hitboxes bigger for the tail booms. It seems it used to be pretty darn hard to hit the tail booms. Small targets if you think about it.

There are two types of hit boxes in IL2's DM. A collision mesh that is in a very similar but simple shake of the aircraft in sections, and an internal hitbox representing internal elements like struts, pilots, control cables, engine and many other things. Even ammo boxes and guns have there own hit boxes! Strangly there is no radiator hit box, but there IS an oil cooler hit box. What kind of sim models oil coolers and not radiators? Thats another thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyways, HE rounds hit the external collision box, and brake up into many many AP rounds in a blossum effect you can see when you turn on Arcade=1. AP rounds pass through the collision box and into the internal hit boxes. Since HE rounds now = 30-40 small AP rounds (Shrapnal) they can do damage to internal parts.

My therie is that since the boom is so narrow, HE rounds birsting on it are VERY close to the control line hit boxes, and thus are easy to damage. Since the P-38 in IL2 does not have the redundancy the real P-38 had, this makes the situation a lot worse.

One solution would be to run a elivator hit box down one boom, and a rudder hit box down the other, not both controles down both. That way if one boom is hit, you not likley to take out BOTH controles in 1 hit.

I doubt Oleg would do that since its "not historical" and just stick us with the flimsy FM and DM that suffers greatly due too IL2's limitations.

If there is one aircraft in this sim that suffers the most due to IL2's limitations, its the P-38. In 4.02, torque is back. Its flimsy, it goes into compressability at low alts, its low speed handling is not simulated properly, high alt performance not simulated well, and it just does not perform up to par with historical data.

She is still a good bird, but if she was ever fully fixed and historical she would be a much better bird, and we would have some very unhappy Luftwaffe pilots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG5_UnKle
11-03-2005, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
She is still a good bird, but if she was ever fully fixed and historical she would be a much better bird, and we would have some very unhappy Luftwaffe pilots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not if the LW ac were also, erm, "fixed" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BTW Gib the reference earlier in the thread to Fw-190 Tanks being invulnerable to MG fire was related to the .303 (you know that puny British version of the U.S M2) and not the .50 Cal.

So no, the fuel tank wasn't able to stop .50's but that wasn't what the british test shows IIRC.

Buzzsaw-
11-03-2005, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Professor_06:

The Buzzsaw argument is based on the conjecture that the two booms of the 38 are half the strength of a single fuselage plane based on presumption equal mass..



No they aren't. My arguments are based on looking at the diagrams of the boom structures of the P-38, as well as noting the thickness of the aluminium which comprises them.


Originally posted by Professor_06:

Ok here are some facts

The max takeoff weight of a FW190 is about 10,000lbs.

The max takeoff weight of a P38J is about 20,000lbs



In regards to this completely spurious argument that the weight of the P-38 is double the weight of a 190, so therefore somehow that means the P-38 is twice as strong... Complete nonsense. For someone who uses a nickname suggesting some academic knowledge, you have just shown your ignorance.

To start with, the figure you quote for the P-38, i.e 20,000 lbs, is not even close to what the aircraft's dry weight was, which is what we need to look at for the purpose of determining the structural weight.

The P-38L weighed 14,100 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs combat loaded. If we add bombs and rockets, then perhaps the aircraft might come close to 20,000 lbs. However, unless you are suggesting that a 1000 lb bomb slung under the wing adds to the boom strength... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ... then I think we can go with the 14,100 lb figure.

Of that weight, a very large part is a result of there being two engines installed, instead of the single engine in most fighters. Again, those engines confer no benefit to the structural strength of the booms. The weight of each engine and its turbochargers runs about 3,000 lbs.

There is also the fact the P-38 has a wing area of 328 square feet, compared with 196.98 for the 190, which again takes up a very large part of the overall weight total for the aircraft, and again, which obviously does not add strength to the booms. Each of those wings has to be built to carry the weight of the engines in them, and thus the structures are heavier.

When actually looking at the booms, we see they are a stressed skin structure, like the structures of most fighter aircraft of WWII, with struts and longerons to brace. There is nothing special about this structure, and the mass of each boom is considerably less than, for example, the tail structure of a FW190.

Ie. we can quite easily draw the conclusion, that given an equal number of bullet impacts, a P-38 boom will fail before the tail of a conventional aircraft.


Originally posted by Professor_06:

You dont have a clue.



I would suggest you actually take the time to look at some reliable sources of information on the P-38, and educate yourself on its construction, instead of coming on this forum and displaying your ignorance.

JtD
11-03-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Buzzsaw's "opinion" is nothing more than a statement of basic mechanics. You don't get it - bad for you.

LOL you crack me up... well an "F" for the day for you. The Buzzsaw argument is based on the conjecture that the two booms of the 38 are half the strength of a single fuselage plane based on presumption equal mass.. Ok here are some facts

The max takeoff weight of a FW190 is about 10,000lbs.

The max takeoff weight of a P38J is about 20,000lbs

Do your math. I trust you made it out of the 2nd grade. Yes your right, the P38 has twice the max takeoff mass/weight of a "regular" single seat fighter. Hee hee you are funny. Basic mechanics. Really LOFL. You dont have a clue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you don't get it. Ok.

GR142_Astro
11-03-2005, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:


Not if the LW ac were also, erm, "fixed"

What a crock of human waste. LW planes have been fixed beyond the point of realism.


http://www.linkandpinhobbies.com/graphics/Ksw_tie.jpg

BSS_CUDA
11-03-2005, 09:58 AM
astro I ran into a while squad of 190's the other day.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/isd7_esb-vcap.jpg

Professor_06
11-03-2005, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:

The Buzzsaw argument is based on the conjecture that the two booms of the 38 are half the strength of a single fuselage plane based on presumption equal mass..








No they aren't. My arguments are based on looking at the diagrams of the boom structures of the P-38, as well as noting the thickness of the aluminium which comprises them.


Originally posted by Professor_06:

Ok here are some facts

The max takeoff weight of a FW190 is about 10,000lbs.

The max takeoff weight of a P38J is about 20,000lbs



In regards to this completely spurious argument that the weight of the P-38 is double the weight of a 190, so therefore somehow that means the P-38 is twice as strong... Complete nonsense. For someone who uses a nickname suggesting some academic knowledge, you have just shown your ignorance.

To start with, the figure you quote for the P-38, i.e 20,000 lbs, is not even close to what the aircraft's dry weight was, which is what we need to look at for the purpose of determining the structural weight.

The P-38L weighed 14,100 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs combat loaded. If we add bombs and rockets, then perhaps the aircraft might come close to 20,000 lbs. However, unless you are suggesting that a 1000 lb bomb slung under the wing adds to the boom strength... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ... then I think we can go with the 14,100 lb figure.

Of that weight, a very large part is a result of there being two engines installed, instead of the single engine in most fighters. Again, those engines confer no benefit to the structural strength of the booms. The weight of each engine and its turbochargers runs about 3,000 lbs.

There is also the fact the P-38 has a wing area of 328 square feet, compared with 196.98 for the 190, which again takes up a very large part of the overall weight total for the aircraft, and again, which obviously does not add strength to the booms. Each of those wings has to be built to carry the weight of the engines in them, and thus the structures are heavier.

When actually looking at the booms, we see they are a stressed skin structure, like the structures of most fighter aircraft of WWII, with struts and longerons to brace. There is nothing special about this structure, and the mass of each boom is considerably less than, for example, the tail structure of a FW190.

Ie. we can quite easily draw the conclusion, that given an equal number of bullet impacts, a P-38 boom will fail before the tail of a conventional aircraft.


Originally posted by Professor_06:

You dont have a clue.



I would suggest you actually take the time to look at some reliable sources of information on the P-38, and educate yourself on its construction, instead of coming on this forum and displaying your ignorance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



LOL.. You are very amusing.. "based on my observation and the thickness of the aluminum". Its almost comedic.


OK, now you given an F- and must go to the back of the class.

I am not going to spend to much time schooling you.

1 You admit that your statements are based on your keen observations of the twin boom structure. Not any specific engineering or structural knowledge. Not damage reports or engineering reports. Just your ungualified observations. You are now mentioning the thickness of the aluminum which you dont reference. unbelievably pretentious.

Now

2. I said MAX takeoff wieght. I know what the planes weigh dry is. any idiot can look up those numbers. The max takeoff weight of the P38J is over 20,000lbs. This gives a better indication of structural integrtiy and power. Also tells you that your "mass" argument doesnt hold water.


3. You also assumed incorrectly that the booms of the P38 support its "Mass" as you like to call it. I can assure they do not.

Now, for your assignment. You must bring three credible articles to class on the structural integrity of the P38.

Also write on the board 100 times, "I will not argue with teacher"....

You are amusing,,,,Thank you

Im ignorant. LOL. You are funny. Anyway Buzz, I cant ague with a guy who's whole arguement is based on "personal observation" Now off to school now. dont forget your books this time. And here are your glasses for your keen observing. dont forget to drink your milk.

Adios...im still laughing.

Professor_06
11-03-2005, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:

The truth about P38 in the ETO on escort missions wa that the Germans would not engage them. They would dive away from fighter escort and the 38s would not pursue ( this is what ive read.)


I havent seen any LW gun camera of a 38 being shot down nor have i seen any battle damage assesments of 38s. I would love to see it if anyone has any links.

here's the link 190 vs p38 (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/P-38.vmw)

And the radio traffic transcript:

Focke-1: I'm gonna pwn this 38 b1atch!
38-1: n00b fireing @ me. Help me d00d
38-2: I just remembered I left the gas on...brb
38-1: You p***y...
38-2: You know what they say, You are what You eat lol
* 38-2 exits (brb)
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 rearanges the landscape but misses the P-38
Focke-2: d00d ur aim suckz. I'll get him.
Focke-1: fecking kill stealer!!!
Focke-2: newb
* P-38-1 wonders what 'airbrake' button does...
* P-38-1 pushes the button
Focke-1: WTF?!? HaXX!
Focke-2: Quick! Ram him you fool!
P-38-1: W00t!

*** The End *** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, that is funny. The link is dead though.

Thanks

faustnik
11-03-2005, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:


What a crock of human waste. LW planes have been fixed beyond the point of realism.


http://www.linkandpinhobbies.com/graphics/Ksw_tie.jpg


Starting a clown act? Talk about a waste.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-03-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
So you're saying that it's wrong for the P47's tail to come off (as other aircraft don't seem to suffer the same problem..or quite so badly) but it's OK for my 'sentiment' to be 'incorrect' regarding the 190 suffering readily from minor wing damage when there is no credible source of information to suggest that this was the case?

All I've seen is that it was susceptible to exploding ammo stores in the wing - something that it clearly doesn't suffer from...and probably should.

I acknowledge your point but the trouble is that I've not seen the P38 lose it's tail with 1 20mm hit...nor the P47. However, I would agree that the P47 appears to be relatively weak in the tail department. I suppose one question would be whether this P47 "problem" is just because of the way certain planes have their 3D/DM models 'constructed'? For example, you don't often see a Spitfire losing it's tail section....

But that's the P47 and 190 (and Spitfire)...the P38 is the subject and, after yet another evening of ground pounding with it, I still haven't changed my opinion that it is no worse than anything else with respect to instances of control loss or items falling off when hit with flak or enemy aircraft guns. Perhaps I ought to fly against these 'uber' Japanese mgs because the LW and their AA boys just don't appear to cut the mustard in the same manner.

Ta,
Norris
Norris,
The P-47 tail didn't start breaking off untill a few patches ago. it has NOT been doing this all along. and there is NOTHING in the structural design that would even sugest that a lucky 20mm shot would cause such a massive structural failure. In fact even some one like my slef with little knowlage in Arinautical Engenering can simply look at the cut away of a p-47 and clearly see that it is a sound design.
I doub't serously that 1 or evern 3 or 4 20mm hit's would cause the thunderbolts tail to just fall off, severd in half. And i have seen a boat load of stuff on damged p-47's. Many MANY pitures and pilot stories about them.
But NEVER & i mean NEVER have i seen 1 with it's tail shot off in the way it does in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"In fact even some one like my slef with little knowlage in Arinautical Engenering can simply look at the cut away of a p-47 and clearly see that it is a sound design."

Now, you'll have to forgive me but I can't help being sarcastic about this point.

How do you know it's sound if you know nothing about the engineering? I'll give an example...

If you took a car designer from 30 years ago and showed him a modern car and asked him how crash-worthy it is, he'd probably poke the lightweight door panels and be amazed as they deflected with his touch. He'd then take a look underneath and wonder why there weren't two hefty chassis rails to give decent strength then he'd look at the front and rear bumpers and wonder why they were just plastic.

However, we might be mistaken to dismiss the design as being 'flimsy' as modern cars channel energy in impacts around the body to improve crash worthiness.

So, on one hand, I don't think that 'looking' at a design can tell you a whole lot about it. And yes, I do appreciate that if he looked at the cutaways with side impact bars etc then he might begin to twig.

I also appreciate that relative to other aircraft of the era, the P47 may have been stronger in design. I've not seen a cutaway of one so I couldn't say.

My point about the construction wasn't about the real life aircraft but about the 'simplified' 3D model that we have in the game. Obviously, it has to 'fit together' in a different way to the real thing and it may be that the model contruction is the reason why unrealistic DMs are obtained. i.e. The tail section of the P47 game *model* may have 'joint' coinciding with a damage 'hit box' (or similar) in a place that is relatively easy to hit (and to, hence, cause a failure). That's purely speculation, though.

The same may apply to the P38 in game model.

The same certainly seems to apply to the 190 fuel tank model because it's almost as if they have been modelled as 'one' unit for simplicity.

Ta,
Norris

Buzzsaw-
11-03-2005, 12:09 PM
Salute

Here is a cutaway drawing of a P-38:

(Click on the thumbnail, and then click on the drawing several times to give it max. size)

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/7994/p38cutaway3ue.th.jpg (http://img126.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p38cutaway3ue.jpg)

For comparison purposes, here is a cutaway of a P-47:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2812/p47cutaway27lt.th.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p47cutaway27lt.jpg)

You will note that these two drawings are not to the same scale, the P-38 drawing is using a scale which makes it appear larger than it is when compared to the P-47. Look at the pilot cockpits to get a sense of scale.

I don't have access to a 190 cutaway drawing, but it would be slightly less robust than the P-47.

In any case, you can see how comparatively flimsy the rear boom section is. The area of the boom where the radiator unit is, would be a little more resistant to hits, but not much.

You can also see how heavily the wing on the P-38 is built, inboard of the engines. This is nessesary to support their weight. Outside of the engine, the wing is less heavily built.

The P-47 had the most heavily built wing of any single engined fighter of WWII. Its tail structure was also very strong.

Chadburn
11-03-2005, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Here is a cutaway drawing of a P-38:
You will note that these two drawings are not to the same scale, the P-38 drawing is using a scale which makes it appear larger than it is when compared to the P-47. Look at the pilot cockpits to get a sense of scale.

I don't have access to a 190 cutaway drawing, but it would be slightly less robust than the P-47.

In any case, you can see how comparatively flimsy the rear boom section is. The area of the boom where the radiator unit is, would be a little more resistant to hits, but not much.

You can also see how heavily the wing on the P-38 is built, inboard of the engines. This is nessesary to support their weight. Outside of the engine, the wing is less heavily built.

The P-47 had the most heavily built wing of any single engined fighter of WWII. Its tail structure was also very strong.

Buzz, thanks for the pics...finally after several pages someone has actually taken the time to post something informative.

Not sure they should be coming apart from a single 20mm he round though, if that's the case. (I still haven't managed to do this in a QMB, but I'm not suggesting others haven't. Obviously their aim is better than mine.)

And I wouldn't worry too much about schooling the prof...his attitude and spelling are strictly grade school regardless of his name.

Buzzsaw-
11-03-2005, 12:41 PM
Salute Chadburn

I am not saying they should come apart from a single 20mm round either.

However, they should be considerably more flimsy than most single engined aircraft tails.

Only such comparatively lightly built aircraft such as the Zero, Oscar, or perhaps some of the Yaks should approach its vulnerability.

JtD
11-03-2005, 12:53 PM
The main problem with the twin booms is the small cross section of each boom. It's roughly 25x35 cm or 10x14 inches. Maybe even smaller at the smallest part.

This is an ideal size for an explosive shell as fielded by the German - esp. when considering the MG with their high explosive potential. It is totally possible that one detonation will cut a single boom clean off.

The other one will have a very hard time sustaining the stresses of the momentum caused by the large elevator/stab alone and even more so if any g's are pulled. The small cross section again makes things worse.

A normal single engined fighter will usually soak up the 20 mm better as there is more room to absorb the blast and has no trouble with any momentums caused by asymetric loads.

Like I said, basic mechanics.

edit: Btw, take a look at Gibbages picture at the first page, esp. this one here:

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture14.jpg

You can see a few holes, possibly caused by 20mm shells. Compare the size of the holes to the size of the boom in the picture and you can imagine the result. I am fairly certain that these were no MG shells, which in that spot should leave holes at least twice as big.

anarchy52
11-03-2005, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:

The truth about P38 in the ETO on escort missions wa that the Germans would not engage them. They would dive away from fighter escort and the 38s would not pursue ( this is what ive read.)


I havent seen any LW gun camera of a 38 being shot down nor have i seen any battle damage assesments of 38s. I would love to see it if anyone has any links.


here's the link 190 vs p38 (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/P-38.vmw)
And the radio traffic transcript:

Focke-1: I'm gonna pwn this 38 b1atch!
38-1: n00b fireing @ me. Help me d00d
38-2: I just remembered I left the gas on...brb
38-1: You p***y...
38-2: You know what they say, You are what You eat lol
* 38-2 exits (brb)
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 rearanges the landscape but misses the P-38
Focke-2: d00d ur aim suckz. I'll get him.
Focke-1: fecking kill stealer!!!
Focke-2: newb
* P-38-1 wonders what 'airbrake' button does...
* P-38-1 pushes the button
Focke-1: WTF?!? HaXX!
Focke-2: Quick! Ram him you fool!
P-38-1: W00t!

*** The End *** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, that is funny. The link is dead though.

Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, my mistake:
FW-190 vs P-38 (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/P-38.wmv)

Warning: gruesome scene of kill stealing n00bs!

BSS_CUDA
11-03-2005, 02:17 PM
heh ok flew for a couple of hours today, shot down 6 times, all 6 times I lost my tailboom http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif 100% of the time I lost a tail boom, straight 6 kill and deflection shots didnt matter, pop pop BOOM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif kinda hard to fly without it too, this cannot be correct, havent flown the 47 but heard the same complaints from them, and you luftywhiners complain about a little fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-03-2005, 02:19 PM
Hate to say it Cuda but what did you say in the other thread?

"Don't get hit?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

Waldo.Pepper
11-03-2005, 02:43 PM
Test a P-38 hitting the tail booms. Fly in a B25 in formation right along side so you can't miss (or hit the plane anywhere wlse) and give it a good rakeing!

bolillo_loco
11-03-2005, 02:54 PM
there is a significan problem with your theory buzzsaw, while you are correct with your statement you over look an important fact. the twin booms of the 38 have much less surface area than that of a conventional aircraft, thus the likelyhood of round hitting the booms (especially where they are "very thin") are many times lower than that of the conventional aircraft.

All of gibbage's photos came from books that I have. I posted these pics and more almost two years ago. I recognize my shoddy photo cropping expertise. I had hoped that gibbage would have had all the photos so that I wouldn't have had to find them and post here.

2 additional photos of P-38s with one boom completely severed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Picture41.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Picture7.jpg

additional 20mm cannon photos to the tail surfaces (note the booms did not fail)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Picture5.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Picture6.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Picture16.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Picture26.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Picture42.jpg

this is more than just a couple of random pics it is clear proof that a few random hits to the tail of a P-38 would not cause significant damage. 3 - 20mm HE Mg-151 hits to a single P-38 rudder and it remains largely intact.

For the person that wanted a list of the books; I could make one up, but many of the P-38 books I have are rare out of print books some of which fetch 100-300 dollars a copy, with many in the 45-75 dollar range.

faustnik
11-03-2005, 03:05 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Picture26.jpg

That is a very interesting photo of an HE round damage pattern. Nice pic!

Gibbage1
11-03-2005, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

That is a very interesting photo of an HE round damage pattern. Nice pic!

You like all the shrapnal marks?

faustnik
11-03-2005, 03:12 PM
Yeah, the shrapnel effect is really demonstrated well in that shot. I wonder if it was 20mm though? Could be 37mm Flak?

Gibbage1
11-03-2005, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, the shrapnel effect is really demonstrated well in that shot. I wonder if it was 20mm though? Could be 37mm Flak?

Its hard to tell, but I very much doubt it was an MG shell since the thin wall shrapnal would of had a hard time penetrating.

faustnik
11-03-2005, 03:17 PM
Don't know...but, I do know the pilot was lucky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif If that round hit near the cockpit, that shrapnel would have been nasty.

I bet those P-38 pilots appreciate the phrase "Made in the USA"! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

bolillo_loco
11-03-2005, 03:20 PM
not only does the photo call it an F-5a, but look at the canopy, early 38F/38G aircraft is obvious, which means early war photo prior to the thin walled mine rounds that the 20mm mg 151 fired. Although it was taken in Italy where many 38s served well after they would have been replaced in other theaters.

faustnik
11-03-2005, 03:28 PM
Bollilo,

Minengeschoss rounds were introduced in 1940, so, who knows? That is a big whole and explosion though. Like Gibbage said, it penetrated through some hard structure before detonating. If that is standard HE, an MGL round would be REALLY nasty.

Kocur_
11-03-2005, 05:13 PM
Umm let me make a tiny terminology note: none of projectiles fired from aerial cannons were "shrapnels" actually. A shrapnel (named after early XIX British inventors name) is a round which has thick walls and "shot off" top section: when fuze is fired, detonation of small explosive charge blows top section and pushes already prepared fragments forwards from the projectile. Modern Oerlikon Contraves 35mm AHEAD projectiles work similarly.

Projectiles we are dealing here are ordinary high explosive/fragmentation projectiles, which produce the most of fragments - which become fragmets no sooner than explosion destroys walls of projectile - sideways, as seen on that P-38 vertical stab.

Buzzsaw-
11-03-2005, 05:26 PM
Salute

Guess what Bolillo Loco? It's not my theory.

I am not saying a single 20mm will take off the tail. I am saying the boom is significantly weaker than a standard tail. And yes, it is a smaller target. So? That doesn't have anything to do with its intrinsic ability to survive a hit.

Sidetrack:

In regards to the prevailing theory that the Minengeschoss is some kind of uber weapon, lets look at reality.

This is a 20mm round, and it's small, and as such just does not carry much explosive. There are many accounts of 20mm rounds exploding in the cockpit of a Allied plane, and no significant damage being done.

Additionally, this is a very light round. It does not have penetrative power of a AP round or even a standard HE round. It is also poorly shaped aerodynamically, (pronounced square nose) and thus loses velocity very quickly.

Second, if the round explodes outside the fuselage, the fact that the small explosion is not confined, means it is going to do very little damage. Which is what is going to happen if it strikes at any kind of oblique angle. No velocity and light weight means it is more likely to bounce off.

In regards to so called "shrapnel", the Minen round is so small, and has so little metal, that it is not going to generate any significant amount of shrapnel. Certainly not shrapnel with the ability to tear apart structures.

I haven't said anything about the Minen round since it was revised to uber status in 4.01, but is becoming more clear to me with this post and others that there are issues with its penetrative power and ability to do damage.

The fact that we have P-38's and P-47's losing tails and booms at the drop of a hat suggests it needs to be re-examined.

Back to the subject:

To repeat: The P-38 booms are weaker than a standard aircraft tail structure. Period. Showing pictures of a hit on the vertical stabilers, rudders, or fins does not prove the boom is heavily built, it proves that if you don't hit the boom you aren't going to damage it.

faustnik
11-03-2005, 05:45 PM
I haven't said anything about the Minen round since it was revised to uber status in 4.01, but is becoming more clear to me with this post and others that there are issues with its penetrative power and ability to do damage.

The fact that we have P-38's and P-47's losing tails and booms at the drop of a hat suggests it needs to be re-examined.

Why? Couldn't the problem be with the modeling of the tail sections of those a/c???

bolillo_loco
11-03-2005, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I haven't said anything about the Minen round since it was revised to uber status in 4.01, but is becoming more clear to me with this post and others that there are issues with its penetrative power and ability to do damage.

The fact that we have P-38's and P-47's losing tails and booms at the drop of a hat suggests it needs to be re-examined.

Why? Couldn't the problem be with the modeling of the tail sections of those a/c??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps it is neither; the problem might be that we have too much time on our hands :O

buzz, you've seen my posts over the past six years and I am sure that you are well aware of the fact that I do not put a great deal of thought into what I type.

I did state "your theory," but meant to say your statement was correct. I wasn't trying to imply that you pulled it out of your head, but even if you had I agree with the damage statement 100%

Professor_06
11-03-2005, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:

The truth about P38 in the ETO on escort missions wa that the Germans would not engage them. They would dive away from fighter escort and the 38s would not pursue ( this is what ive read.)


I havent seen any LW gun camera of a 38 being shot down nor have i seen any battle damage assesments of 38s. I would love to see it if anyone has any links.


here's the link 190 vs p38 (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/P-38.vmw)
And the radio traffic transcript:

Focke-1: I'm gonna pwn this 38 b1atch!
38-1: n00b fireing @ me. Help me d00d
38-2: I just remembered I left the gas on...brb
38-1: You p***y...
38-2: You know what they say, You are what You eat lol
* 38-2 exits (brb)
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 bangbangbangbang
* Focke-1 rearanges the landscape but misses the P-38
Focke-2: d00d ur aim suckz. I'll get him.
Focke-1: fecking kill stealer!!!
Focke-2: newb
* P-38-1 wonders what 'airbrake' button does...
* P-38-1 pushes the button
Focke-1: WTF?!? HaXX!
Focke-2: Quick! Ram him you fool!
P-38-1: W00t!

*** The End *** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, that is funny. The link is dead though.

Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, my mistake:
FW-190 vs P-38 (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/P-38.wmv)

Warning: gruesome scene of kill stealing n00bs! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you

Professor_06
11-03-2005, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Here is a cutaway drawing of a P-38:
You will note that these two drawings are not to the same scale, the P-38 drawing is using a scale which makes it appear larger than it is when compared to the P-47. Look at the pilot cockpits to get a sense of scale.

I don't have access to a 190 cutaway drawing, but it would be slightly less robust than the P-47.

In any case, you can see how comparatively flimsy the rear boom section is. The area of the boom where the radiator unit is, would be a little more resistant to hits, but not much.

You can also see how heavily the wing on the P-38 is built, inboard of the engines. This is nessesary to support their weight. Outside of the engine, the wing is less heavily built.

The P-47 had the most heavily built wing of any single engined fighter of WWII. Its tail structure was also very strong.

Buzz, thanks for the pics...finally after several pages someone has actually taken the time to post something informative.

Not sure they should be coming apart from a single 20mm he round though, if that's the case. (I still haven't managed to do this in a QMB, but I'm not suggesting others haven't. Obviously their aim is better than mine.)

And I wouldn't worry too much about schooling the prof...his attitude and spelling are strictly grade school regardless of his name. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Chad..Welcome to the schoolyard.
BTW I dont like to type so I used dragon dictate 8 for my reply. You can join Buzz at the back of the class.

Since you are impressed by a skeletal of a P38 you get star for participating.

Grey_Mouser67
11-03-2005, 06:43 PM
To those debating the strength of the booms and tail sections between jug and lightning...there is absolutely no way to judge from a drawing the strength of the construction other than the more individual struts and members, the more the stress would be spread and the less likely a single hole would cause catestrophic failure.

Besides providing a form and shape to the aircraft, the tail boom must resist bending forces that occur during high G manuevers, take off and landing as well as turbulence.

In basic statics and dynamics a bending member put in stress will deflect...the further the resisting surfaces are away from the COG the more resistance will be there for a given mass...hence the I beam...the maximum stress will be furthest from the center with the center having only slight shear forces. In laymens terms, the larger teh diameter the fuselage, the stronger the tail section is under load for a given amount of metal. In order to take a small tail section like the P-38 and make it strong like a Jug, then the materials used would have to be thicker and heavier and there'd have to be more of them. Without that understanding there is no basis for conjecture other than large aircraft, by nature will be stronger in bending. real life example...a solid steel pipe of a give weight is much weaker in bending than a hollow pipe of the same weight and length.

In addition, because the stresses are greatest at the outmost surfaces, any damage taken on the top or bottom surfaces of the tail section are much more critical than those that occur in or near the middle of the tail section when looking at it from the side....same goes for wings too!

By nature of their size and construction, both the lightning and the Jug were very strong. The Jug and Hellcat were the most durable single engined fighters of the war bar none. Smaller aircraft and those built with light weight and power loading in mind were weak by comparison....this is a fact and a physical reality. You can't have a light airframe and have it durable with the materials and engineering available in 1943....it is an impossibility.

It is likely that the Jug was stronger than the Lightning and they were both stronger than a Fw and much, much stronger than a 109, Spitfire, Yak or La...size matters when it comes to this. Neither aircraft should fail structural failures as a result of a handful of 20mm hits let alone machinegun fire. The Lightning's pilot was somewhat vulnerable and the tailsection was likely weaker than the Jug or Hellcat, but really every aircraft was likely weaker than those two....now the real question in my mind is why Oleg doesn't translate this into his game...this isn't secret KGB information...these planes fly around all the time today. Nothing except the ground and compressibity and maybe 3 mk 108 hits should make the tail section of a jug come off. The lightning should have the control duplicity mentioned and be resistant to structural failure as well...I'll use the word resistant as opposed to invulnerable.

Copperhead310th
11-03-2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
So you're saying that it's wrong for the P47's tail to come off (as other aircraft don't seem to suffer the same problem..or quite so badly) but it's OK for my 'sentiment' to be 'incorrect' regarding the 190 suffering readily from minor wing damage when there is no credible source of information to suggest that this was the case?

All I've seen is that it was susceptible to exploding ammo stores in the wing - something that it clearly doesn't suffer from...and probably should.

I acknowledge your point but the trouble is that I've not seen the P38 lose it's tail with 1 20mm hit...nor the P47. However, I would agree that the P47 appears to be relatively weak in the tail department. I suppose one question would be whether this P47 "problem" is just because of the way certain planes have their 3D/DM models 'constructed'? For example, you don't often see a Spitfire losing it's tail section....

But that's the P47 and 190 (and Spitfire)...the P38 is the subject and, after yet another evening of ground pounding with it, I still haven't changed my opinion that it is no worse than anything else with respect to instances of control loss or items falling off when hit with flak or enemy aircraft guns. Perhaps I ought to fly against these 'uber' Japanese mgs because the LW and their AA boys just don't appear to cut the mustard in the same manner.

Ta,
Norris
Norris,
The P-47 tail didn't start breaking off untill a few patches ago. it has NOT been doing this all along. and there is NOTHING in the structural design that would even sugest that a lucky 20mm shot would cause such a massive structural failure. In fact even some one like my slef with little knowlage in Arinautical Engenering can simply look at the cut away of a p-47 and clearly see that it is a sound design.
I doub't serously that 1 or evern 3 or 4 20mm hit's would cause the thunderbolts tail to just fall off, severd in half. And i have seen a boat load of stuff on damged p-47's. Many MANY pitures and pilot stories about them.
But NEVER & i mean NEVER have i seen 1 with it's tail shot off in the way it does in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"In fact even some one like my slef with little knowlage in Arinautical Engenering can simply look at the cut away of a p-47 and clearly see that it is a sound design."

Now, you'll have to forgive me but I can't help being sarcastic about this point.

How do you know it's sound if you know nothing about the engineering? I'll give an example...

If you took a car designer from 30 years ago and showed him a modern car and asked him how crash-worthy it is, he'd probably poke the lightweight door panels and be amazed as they deflected with his touch. He'd then take a look underneath and wonder why there weren't two hefty chassis rails to give decent strength then he'd look at the front and rear bumpers and wonder why they were just plastic.

However, we might be mistaken to dismiss the design as being 'flimsy' as modern cars channel energy in impacts around the body to improve crash worthiness.

So, on one hand, I don't think that 'looking' at a design can tell you a whole lot about it. And yes, I do appreciate that if he looked at the cutaways with side impact bars etc then he might begin to twig.

I also appreciate that relative to other aircraft of the era, the P47 may have been stronger in design. I've not seen a cutaway of one so I couldn't say.

My point about the construction wasn't about the real life aircraft but about the 'simplified' 3D model that we have in the game. Obviously, it has to 'fit together' in a different way to the real thing and it may be that the model contruction is the reason why unrealistic DMs are obtained. i.e. The tail section of the P47 game *model* may have 'joint' coinciding with a damage 'hit box' (or similar) in a place that is relatively easy to hit (and to, hence, cause a failure). That's purely speculation, though.

The same may apply to the P38 in game model.

The same certainly seems to apply to the 190 fuel tank model because it's almost as if they have been modelled as 'one' unit for simplicity.

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok well i can agree with a lot youv'e said there. But here is my point.

A. This 3d model has NOT been braking in this manner when damged in the past. This only became a probelem more recently like in the past 6 months or so.
(and again it all comes down to how much time you spend with your paticuler aircraft in the sim that matters & i have at least 300 or more hours on the p-47D-10/22/27. So i think i'm quallified to speak on it's performance, flight model, weapons modeling, & damage modeling AS IT IS REPRESENTED IN THE SIM.)

B. from the outset, Oleg has intened to get the aircraft in the sim to be as close to real life specs as is currently avalible with modern home computing technology. And he himself has said this many many times. Now with that in mind.....
and knowing that it was most likley, with a very high degree of probablity that the REAL
P-47 did not just "BREAK IN HALF" after 2 or 3 20mm rounds, wouldn't you think that this sort of thing should be fixed?

With all the reading i've done, and even more so of some of the members of the comunity than i have, i think if the real thunderbolts broke in have in such a maner, one of us would have turned up something on it if there were ever such a case. But from all of these differnt people, doing all this reaserch, and devoating thier time to benifit the comunity as a whole, all we've been abale to turn up on the subject is contrary to how the aircraft is potrayed in the sim.

Final summery: All the avalible evidence that can be found points to one simple rok solid conclution. The P-47 was an extreamly durrable aircraft, that was able to absorb enourmus amounts of damage and still be airworthy.
No case can be found that conclusivly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the real p-47 broke in such a way after only a few rounds.
Infact the eveidnce will show that time & time again it has taken the beating and still mannaged to be skillfully landed by the pilots.
Now Given all of that....and Olegs dedication to historical accuracy with in the limits of modern PC capablities would you sir not agree that this breaking in half of the p-47 is an unrealistic problem that can, & should be addressed by the dev team?

Professor_06
11-03-2005, 07:44 PM
Copperhead. I agree and I love your Sig. That is really funny. LOFL

Buzzsaw-
11-03-2005, 07:58 PM
Salute Faustnik

I fly a P-47 most of the time when I am online.

I don't get shot down a lot, don't score a lot, (more than I get shot down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) because I fly the Jug as you have too, cautiously.

However, I notice, that the majority of the times I have been shot down, it is for two reasons: 1) I fly myself into the ground maneuevering to avoid the enemy, or 2) I lose my tail.

The loss of my tail is also not nessesarily the result of being hit by a Mk 108, in fact, more often it is a result of being hit by 20mm. The last time I was shot down by a Dora with a single burst. And of course, lost my tail, as I noticed as I parachuted out.

As someone who flys a 190 by preference if I am flying German, I can say that in all the times that I have flown a 190, I have never lost a tail to enemy fire. That is through the original IL-2, up to the present.

I don't know what your experience is, you fly the plane a lot more than I do, maybe your observations are different.

You did notice the fuel leak when it happened. I know you were frustrated with it. Maybe you can understand the frustrations of some players who are frequent flyers of P-47's and P-38's.

Chadburn
11-03-2005, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


I haven't said anything about the Minen round since it was revised to uber status in 4.01, but is becoming more clear to me with this post and others that there are issues with its penetrative power and ability to do damage.

The fact that we have P-38's and P-47's losing tails and booms at the drop of a hat suggests it needs to be re-examined.

Back to the subject:

To repeat: The P-38 booms are weaker than a standard aircraft tail structure. Period. Showing pictures of a hit on the vertical stabilers, rudders, or fins does not prove the boom is heavily built, it proves that if you don't hit the boom you aren't going to damage it.

Well, you can go argue the effectiveness of 151/20 with Tony Williams, but I don't think the weapon in the game has uber status compared to either the Hispano or ShVAK.

If the P38 tail is falling off after a single 20mm HE hit, then posting tracks showing this would be helpful, and they should be forwarded to 1C.

Viper2005_
11-03-2005, 08:57 PM
Weapon damage is very variable in this game, especially online.

I just shot 54 rounds into a Spitfire online with my Fw-190A, and after a series of beautiful explosions, he just flew on as though nothing had happened - no smoke - he even tried to go offensive on me!

OTOH a few nights ago I chopped a Spitfire's wing off with a single 11 round burst.

That's a factor of 5 variation in damage tolerance...

The same thing seems to apply to most of the aircraft in the game.

The better my system is performing, the more damage I seem to dish out and the less damage I seem to take...

Last patch my Fw-190 went through a phase of losing its ailerons on the first burst it took like clockwork. It was needless to say very annoying. Then it just stopped. I think I was just having bad luck.

It could be that the people who are having bad experiences with various aircraft at the moment are unlucky. It could also be that they've got systems issues.

I think there's more to this DM thing than meets the eye... I have never seen a Spitfire take 54 rounds and keep flying before. I wish I had a track. At least half of those were 20 mm cannon rounds.

Coincidentally, I've got some system trouble at the moment:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/7941066373

I'm going to roll back my drivers and see what happens.

The problem with this is that because there are so many unknowns in the system, it has to be attacked statistically, and that means lots of testing to produce significant samples...

faustnik
11-03-2005, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


You did notice the fuel leak when it happened. I know you were frustrated with it. Maybe you can understand the frustrations of some players who are frequent flyers of P-47's and P-38's.

Buzzsaw,

What are you talking about? I've been saying that the P-47 tails is too weak for a LONG time now?????????????

I'm questioning your comments on the "uber" Mg151 modeling.

BfHeFwMe
11-03-2005, 10:44 PM
One of the short commings of the game is a lack of total airframe structure. How you can take a 7.62 in the prop and it can kill your engine. To the program your prop hub, dome, and parts of the gearbox don't exist. A rifle class bullet can travel straight to the engine damage trigger with no deflection or reduction in power until it hit's a programmed existing part.

How it's so easy to knock off certain parts, the 109 radiator and engine used to be the posterboy for this. Frankly there was nothing else to hit up there, just hanging out in the wind.

Picture Faustnik pointed out shows it all, there should be no way a round should ever make it to the junction from a pure six aspect. In program the whole back boom from attachment to the rads probably trips a tail loss, with nothing in between.

Gibbage1
11-04-2005, 02:38 AM
This is from a single 20MM.

http://www.web-birds.com/12th/57/sterling0017.jpg

It dont look like a 20MM can take the tail off in 1 or even 3 hits. There is a LOT of structure there in comparison to the damage done. There is just no way.

This is labled as a 40MM hit.

http://www.web-birds.com/12th/57/65%2040MM%20Doc.jpg

Again, big hole, but STILL not close to removing the tail. Still a lot of structure left.

Gibbage1
11-04-2005, 03:01 AM
OK. Lets stir this pot a little more as we get side tracked on the P-47 loosing tail biz. I think we can all agree the P-47 looses its tail more often and with less damage then the Fw-190. Correct? Lets compair apples to apples, shall we?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/tail.jpg

As you can see, the P-47's tail section is much bigger, and has a lot more structure too it. In fact, it looks like the FW-190's tail would be easy to detach as it has very little structure in its very narow section!! Very few stringers and cross members.

Lets take a look at the "weak" P-38 tail.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38tail.jpg

Here you see a LOT of structure in this tail. Its a very narrow tail, but its extreamly over built! Look at all the cross members and stringers! Its built even more stirdy inch for inch then the P-47! The tail on the P-38 was small, but it had to deal with a LOT of stress, so they had to build it VERY VERY well, and they did.

badatflyski
11-04-2005, 04:02 AM
sorry gibs, but your compare grafic with the p47 and the 190 is not really significant, as you can see the whole stucture on the grafic of the p47 and no structure but only internals on the grafic of the 190 (and only lines representing the <span class="ev_code_RED">basic</span>-structure)...i don't have the OMG of the tail structure in my possesion so i can't show it..but if you want tha wings or the fuselage... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
anymawy, if you ask yourself why is the tail of the 190 so strong, read the fire-test done on a 190fuselage i've posted! it looks like an american test , so it has to be right! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-04-2005, 06:45 AM
I'm not sure what the point of showing pics of P38s that have survived hits to the rudder/elevator is when what we really ought to be looking at pics of P38s that have been hit in the boom(s) and surviving.

Or, maybe because these pics are absent, it tells us that the modelling may well be correct as it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've never lost the tail section of a 190 but this could hark back to my point about the 3D models; the 190 was introduced a long time ago (Il-2) whereas the P47 and P38 may have 'more complex' DMs concerning the tails. Of course, 190 pilots might hope that simple DM = less chance of plane falling apart (a la Lagg3) but the 190 is susceptible to (ironically) "wings falling off" when it's wing construction can be seen to be strong.

I did manage to lose the entire tail section of a P38 last night in a co-op after 3-4 hits from a '44 A6M. That would seem reasonable to me.

Ta,
Norris

anarchy52
11-04-2005, 07:22 AM
Focke has a weakness towards Shvak which is less powerfull the either Hispano or MG151/20.

2 hits on the wing of FW-190 by Shvak can remove it completely. It's not subjective assesment. It's EXACTLY 2 hits confirmed by multiple gunstats and mission reports.

I think that structural failures in general are overdone in the sim. Historically (visible on guncams) most kills were not result of catastrophic structural failure ie wing falling off, plane cut in half etc. Especially western allies/german late planes.

No.1 killer was fuel fire followed by damage to critical components like engine, cooler, oil tank, oil cooler. With cannon armed aircraft signifficant danger was ammo cookoff if ammo boxes were hit resulting in spectacular detonation and structural failure (as seen in USAF guncameras featuring FW-190).

However I did see I-16 losing a wing from what looked like a single 20mm hit and Betty loosing a wingtip from 6 x .50 fire (famous Ohka intercept video).

Back to the subject:
The reason behind overdone structural failures in FB are IMHO:

- lack of hitboxes / detail in DM - most visible is the complete absence of radiators which are probably the most voulnerable part concerning inline engines.

- gameplay - players want to score kills and want them to be spectacular. They don't want a shot up plane to make it home as long as they are the ones doing the shooting.

- gameplay - most of us can achieve higher then the real historical hit ratio. We inflict more damage despite targets in game manuevering far more then they did IRL.

Maddox does not wan't / does not have time to tend to DM issues which are far from limited to one or two types.

HayateAce
11-04-2005, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
A bunch of nonsense hooie to gloss over the stark truth...

Yes Gibbage, please don't post factual drawings, the truth may emerge.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TAGERT.
11-04-2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
OK. Lets stir this pot a little more as we get side tracked on the P-47 loosing tail biz. I think we can all agree the P-47 looses its tail more often and with less damage then the Fw-190. Correct? Lets compair apples to apples, shall we?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/tail.jpg

As you can see, the P-47's tail section is much bigger, and has a lot more structure too it. In fact, it looks like the FW-190's tail would be easy to detach as it has very little structure in its very narow section!! Very few stringers and cross members.

Lets take a look at the "weak" P-38 tail.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38tail.jpg

Here you see a LOT of structure in this tail. Its a very narrow tail, but its extreamly over built! Look at all the cross members and stringers! Its built even more stirdy inch for inch then the P-47! The tail on the P-38 was small, but it had to deal with a LOT of stress, so they had to build it VERY VERY well, and they did. Now those x-ray like pictures do show the 190 has a few less bones to suport it's weight dont it? My god, the US aircraft were build to last! Which may explane why you still see so many 60 year old US planes in the air. How many orginal 190s and 109 are airworthy these days?

NorrisMcWhirter
11-04-2005, 09:37 AM
Gosh - it never occurred to me that the reason why there were so many US warbirds still flying was because their construction was so much better(!)

Nothing whatsoever to do with money, availability, patriotic reasons etc.

Ta,
Norris

badatflyski
11-04-2005, 09:38 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

what are you funny hayatagnome!
next time, put the right text in your copy without trying to defiguring the sense of the sentence...
yes, indeed, the truth may hurt...but not the bluewhinniebiasedoverspeculated people like you think we are. if you want to know the answer, just read the putain de ***** fire test done on the 190 fuselage...but maybe you just like to read thinks that can be used to boost the p38 at 3000HP and make the p51 dive with Mach2 or even the 0.50 cutting the akagi in half...but not things that don't go in the same opinion you have.
read more (european books) books and learn!

ps: the corvette sucks,Ferrari 550 GTR rules!

Hoarmurath
11-04-2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Gosh - it never occurred to me that the reason why there were so many US warbirds still flying was because their construction was so much better(!)

Nothing whatsoever to do with money, availability, patriotic reasons etc.

Ta,
Norris

Sure, nothing to do with the fact that almost all german planes were scrapped at the end of the war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

HayateAce
11-04-2005, 09:56 AM
Mostly to do with the fact that they were blown outta da sky.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-11.jpg

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-13.jpg

TAGERT.
11-04-2005, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Gosh - it never occurred to me that the reason why there were so many US warbirds still flying was because their construction was so much better(!)

Nothing whatsoever to do with money, availability, patriotic reasons etc.

Ta,
Norris So, Germans got no money and are not patriotic? Sorry, disagree 100%

Professor_06
11-04-2005, 09:59 AM
BTW, (most know this)the P38 dry weight was 14,000+lbs. and the P38J had a max takeoff weight of over 20,000lbs. was as much or more thatn the P47. The FW is what about less than 8000lbs dry. discount the 3000lbs for the second engine and you still have 3000lbs of aluminum and armour reinforcement for the P38.

Researching battle damage is tough. I just found a damage report on a group of FW and it looks like a lot of losses were accidents. (alot of battle damage crashes though.) Here is a sample report.

15.09.44 Fl.œ.G. 1? - FW 190 A-8 380 337 ? Belly-landing due to engine problems near Großenhain / Germany 30 H
15.09.44 Fl.œ.G. 1 ? - FW 190 A-8 380 340 ? Force-landing Quersa / Germany 30 H
26.09.44 12./J.G. 11 Uffz. Hermann Barion W FW 190 A-8 380 158 'Blue 3 + I' Crashed after combat Lobith/Tolkamer / Holland 100 F
29.09.44 11./J.G. 11 Uffz. Ludwig Rossner + FW 190 A-8 380 165 'Black 9 + I' Crashed after combat Arnhem area / Holland 100 F
16.10.44 6./J.G. 54 Obfhr. Georg-Heinrich Koch + FW 190 A-8 380 160 'Yellow 1 + ' Combat Pl.Qu. 17487 / Courland 100 F
10.11.44 13./J.G. 54 Gefr. Karl Sablatnig W FW 190 A-8 380 362 ? Overturned on landing G¶rlitz / Germany 60% ?
10.11.44 14./J.G. 54 Uffz. Erwin B¶ttge W FW 190 A-8 380 350 ? Crashed during ferry flight Genshagen / Germany 40% H
15.11.44 J.G. 1 Fw. Wolfram Murach + FW 190 A-8 380 163 'Yellow 20 + ' Crashed Mark.Friedland / Germany 100 H
05.12.44 16./J.G. 54 Fw. Heinz Marx + FW 190 A-8 380 170 'Blue 10 + ' Combat with Spitfire Dortmund area / Germany 100 F
05.12.44 4./J.G. 1 Obfhr. Gerhard Essig + FW 190 A-8 380 368 'Red 8 + ' Crashed after combat Rheinsberg / Germany 100 F
21.12.44 3./J.G. 54 Fw. Hans-Joachim Kroschinski W FW 190 A-8 380 360 'Yellow 6 + ' Hit by Pe-2 gunner, bailed out Frauenburg / Courland 100 F
01.01.45 I./J.G. 6 Uffz. Willi Voss + FW 190 A-8 380 349 'White 12 + ' Crashed Lingen / Germany 100 F
16.01.45 II./J.G. 1 ? - FW 190 A-8 380 345 ? Damaged due to engine failure ? dmg ?
23.01.45 II./J.G. 6 ? - FW 190 A-8 380 356 ? Destroyed by own troops Fl.Pl. Posen 100 H
17.02.45 6./J.G. 54 Obgefr. Erich Handtke + FW 190 A-8 380 373 'Yellow 8 + ' Pilot error after combat with Yak-9 Pl.Qu. 07611 / Courland 100 F
19.02.45 III./K.G.(J) 30 ? - FW 190 A-8 380 364 ? Pilot error on landing Fl.Pl. Pilsen / Czechoslovakia 25 ?
02.03.45 3./J.Gr. 10 ? - FW 190 A-9 380 173 ? Belly-landing, damaged by gunners near Wittenberg / Germany 40 F
02.03.45 II./K.G. 200 - FW 190 A-8 380 971 ? Low-level attack Fl.Pl. Alten-Grabow / Germany 100 F
08.03.45 I./Erg. K.G.(J) Obgefr. Golge W FW 190 A-8 380 396 ? Crashed on take-off Fl.Pl. Pilsen / Czechoslovakia 100 H
08.03.45 III./K.G.(J) 30 ? - FW 190 A-8 380 399 ? Crashed on landing Fl.Pl. Pilsen / Czechoslovakia 45 ?

Same with the P47. Most fuelages were lost during accidents or taken out of action as War Weary. Only .7% were lost in actual combat. So I've read.

I was testing out the P38 late in QMB and was letting a POS AI FW190A8 hit me with its 20s.

after a single strike the the plane was blown in half. The wing was severed at the wing root.

Then I flew the FW V FW. And was hit with some 20s and the FW disitergrated. My conclusion is that the 151/20 sometimes have too great and effect on both the FW and P38. There is nothing to explode in the wing of the 38 to cause it to sever from a couple of hits. Not just the tail section. The whole boom, wing and enginge.

The FW cant takes 20 hits either.

FW v P38, I did notice that at times the 38 could sometimes take more than one or two hits before disitigrating. As has been mentioned, there is a lot of variation. But the DM on allied planes needs some attention. IMO

(sorry for the typos, i hate proof reading)

TAGERT.
11-04-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Sure, nothing to do with the fact that almost all german planes were scrapped at the end of the war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Percentage wise, more Us planes were scrapped, in that we had more! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But, your right, most of what was left we just tossed away, a few ended up in the hands of some 3rd world airforces and such. But there are a few 109s that are still air worthy.

TAGERT.
11-04-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Mostly to do with the fact that they were blown outta da sky.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-11.jpg

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-13.jpg Good point, I stand corrected.

Kocur_
11-04-2005, 10:18 AM
I think we need to make one thing clear: we are talking here about probability of losing aft part of fuselage, not vertical or horizontal stab, right?


Lets not remain under impression, that those longerons and frames are all that makes semi-monocoque structure - its not like that. Such a structure is basically an aluminium (or wooden)tube. But making this tube as thick-walled as it would take to make it able to support itself and all those stresses would be bad in terms of weight efficiency. In fact the smallest full monocoque aluminum structure vehicle I know is...M113 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif So thin aluminum is used. But thin aluminium would get bent and collapse under stress. You can try it yourself: roll piece of paper into tube and bent it prssing opposite ends: under certain pressure one side will collapse and it will get bent. So to prevent thin aluminium skin from collapsing there are longerons inside, and those are supported by frames, which provide crosswise shape. Thats why they call it SEMI-monocoque stessed skin construction. You cant just look at longerons and frames and be able tell how strong the structure is, because main part of stress is carried by the skin itslef. So you need to know not only how many longerons/stiffners/frames inside, but also how thick the skin is, because skin provides major part of strenght.

Would you call this one strong, looking at quantity of internal parts?
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/4195/fig6web3lw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Now, Ive been long enough around here to be prepared to face attack from all sides of this silly red/blue conflict after making such a purely technical note http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, SO: the way P-47 loses aft fuselage is simply STUPID! Its fuselage DM should be similar and stronger than Fw190's, i.e. P-47 pilot should see his fuselage cut off very rare. How come P-47 with its weight, all-metal fuselage loses aft fuselage easier than wooden soviet planes! BS! For there is another thing: the greater diameter of a semi-monocoque structure, the stronger the structure is. But it workes both ways, so because of small diameter, aft sections of P-38 booms, say 1,5m before vertical stab starts, would be much easier to cut in half by certain amount of HE hits than structure of larger diameter.

(That above is Zero's fuselage structure, checkhere (http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/Zeke32.htm#Aft%20Fuselage))

Gibbage1
11-04-2005, 02:20 PM
You bring up a good point, but the A6M's construction was very light, used thin aluminum, and a lighter more brittle aluminum compound then US and GE aircraft. They needed more rigging to keep it from collapsing!!! Plus the rigging is very thin, and VERY hallow. If you look at the P-38 and P-47, they have solid bunkheads, were the 109, 190 and Zero have hallow ones. Also the P-47 used much thicker aluminum in its construction. On that very page you linked they have a study on the P-47's construction.

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/tailcone.jpg

Grey_Mouser67
11-04-2005, 02:51 PM
The number of members is important to the strength of a tail section as is the material they are made out of, but more importantly how much material there is.

Go back to statics and dynamics 101...if the members are even close to similar, the Jug is much stronger than the Fw if those drawings are at all accurate. Not only is the distance from the center of gravity greater, but there is much more mass in terms of bending members avaialable...unless the Fw has much thicker and heavier members...find out the answer to that and any mechanical engineer will be able to tell you which is stronger.

Any bow hunters out there? Do you shoot ultalights? 2414's or 1818's? If you are worth your salt, you'll be shooting the bigger diameter arrows with thinner walls...the principle is the same...you can use less aluminum and acheive the same strength in bending by locating the resisting surfaces far away from the center of gravity...as you narrow the tube, the thickness of the walls and supporting members have to become much thicker...the larger diameter tube is more efficient. There is no way I can imagine that the Fw is anywhere close to the strength of the Jug and probably not even the Lightning based on those drawings...just not enough strutts there.

BSS_CUDA
11-04-2005, 04:57 PM
ok this is bordering on the rediculous with the Tailboom loss. in the last 3 days I've been downed 15 times. every single time it was a tailboom loss. it is truly pathetic if any one truly thinks, that this is reality

Aaron_GT
11-04-2005, 05:09 PM
a few ended up in the hands of some 3rd world airforces and such.

Mostly (at least initially) first world airforces. For example the French took delivery of quite a few surplus US aircraft immediately after the end of WW2, for example, as did many nations in Europe after the German occupation was lifted. It wasn't until much later that they ended up in the hands of third world nations, essentially after the Air National Guards had finished with them.

bolillo_loco
11-04-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
I'm not sure what the point of showing pics of P38s that have survived hits to the rudder/elevator is when what we really ought to be looking at pics of P38s that have been hit in the boom(s) and surviving.

Or, maybe because these pics are absent, it tells us that the modelling may well be correct as it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've never lost the tail section of a 190 but this could hark back to my point about the 3D models; the 190 was introduced a long time ago (Il-2) whereas the P47 and P38 may have 'more complex' DMs concerning the tails. Of course, 190 pilots might hope that simple DM = less chance of plane falling apart (a la Lagg3) but the 190 is susceptible to (ironically) "wings falling off" when it's wing construction can be seen to be strong.

I did manage to lose the entire tail section of a P38 last night in a co-op after 3-4 hits from a '44 A6M. That would seem reasonable to me.

Ta,
Norris

I would suggest that you scroll back and take a look at the pictures posted and the comments that surround them. There are 3 photos of 38s with tail booms completely severed along with several photos that show 1-3 20mm hits and the elevators or rudders remain largely intact. 3-4 20mm rounds causing the entire tail section to fail is a bit rediculous. The booms are very small and hard to hit so the idea that a conventional aircraft tail section may or may not be able to sustain more damage is not considering the entire picture. Due to its larger size it will be more likely to recieve more hits than one that is smaller; more over there has been much discussion about how one quick burst renders both elevators and rudders inoperable. I would suggest taking a long hard look at the pic that shows 3 mg 151 HE rounds that have struck the 38's rudder, notice that it remains largely intact? Imagine how many it would take to completely knock off the rudder? Even if you did manage that there is still one other rudder that is still functional.

I have shot down a lot of P-38s (in this game)and been on voice coms with the player. One quick burst and his tail is either blown off or he loses all his controls. With the last two patches I am not nearly as good at shooting, the twitchy characteristics of my gun platform make my gun fire random. I can observer 3-5 random hits on the tail control surfaces, yet it takes the 38 out.

faustnik
11-04-2005, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
ok this is bordering on the rediculous with the Tailboom loss. in the last 3 days I've been downed 15 times. every single time it was a tailboom loss. it is truly pathetic if any one truly thinks, that this is reality

That sucks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'll start making a detailed DM study on it and get it to 1C. I can wrap it in with the P-47 tail loss stuff. Can you make ntracks next time please CUDA?

Aaron_GT
11-04-2005, 05:15 PM
.if the members are even close to similar, the Jug is much stronger than the Fw if those drawings are at all accurate.

I am not sure the drawing of the 190 is actually showing the structural members of the tail at all. It seems to show the actuator rods for the elevator, rudder, and tail wheel, but does not seem to be a diagram of fuselage structure. It shows no longerons at all in the fuselage, and I somehow suspect the 190 had more than none.

Aaron_GT
11-04-2005, 05:21 PM
3-4 20mm rounds causing the entire tail section to fail is a bit rediculous.

Typically it took about 5 20mm hits (on average) to take out a fighter aircraft. 3 or 4 concentrated on one part of a plane causing structural failure in that region seems pretty reasonable, on average. It's possible for planes to take more, even in one structural component, but an average of 3 or 4 taking out the tail is plausible. The DM of the game is going to be much less sophisticated than the real thing and might be set to model the average and not the exceptional outlying events so much.

Aaron_GT
11-04-2005, 05:28 PM
How come P-47 with its weight, all-metal fuselage loses aft fuselage easier than wooden soviet planes!

Wooden structures can be quite strong against battle damage. The wooden components will tend to be bit heavier for a given strength of metal but much larger. This size means that a given loss of volume of structure hurts the wooden structure less up to a point, but the wooden structure is more likely to fail catastrophically as it is less ductile. Against machine gun rounds wood can do a bit better than metal for lower levels of damage. Against cannon rounds, probably not, as the lighter wood will be much more affected by an explosion.

VW-IceFire
11-04-2005, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 3-4 20mm rounds causing the entire tail section to fail is a bit rediculous.

Typically it took about 5 20mm hits (on average) to take out a fighter aircraft. 3 or 4 concentrated on one part of a plane causing structural failure in that region seems pretty reasonable, on average. It's possible for planes to take more, even in one structural component, but an average of 3 or 4 taking out the tail is plausible. The DM of the game is going to be much less sophisticated than the real thing and might be set to model the average and not the exceptional outlying events so much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've heard that to be the case...and thats all well and fine...but it should apply roughly across all aircraft types.

Instead we have P-47s and P-38s that are generally considered well built aircraft with solid construction that loose tails in a few hits (maybe thats right) and then we have aircraft like Yak's which were generally considered to be fragile taking twice as many hits and still flying (and maybe thats right?). Or a Lagg-3 which wasn't considered the guanrateed varnished flying coffin for nothing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I mean when it comes down to it...they all really should only be somewhat different from each other but we see some pretty spectacular differences in a few rare cases. Across the board most things are ok.

BSS_CUDA
11-04-2005, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
ok this is bordering on the rediculous with the Tailboom loss. in the last 3 days I've been downed 15 times. every single time it was a tailboom loss. it is truly pathetic if any one truly thinks, that this is reality

That sucks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'll start making a detailed DM study on it and get it to 1C. I can wrap it in with the P-47 tail loss stuff. Can you make ntracks next time please CUDA? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try to remember to record. I dont usually but I'll keep it in mind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

ronison
11-04-2005, 11:49 PM
Im not here to get into the big debate about the P-38 but I have noticed a trend. Many of the US aircraft have had some serrious structial problems over the years. I remember flying a F4U and having my wing blown off at the fold many times. And I dont mean many times in a long period of flying but many times as in every time I was shot down.

Now I know that at the fold there was not alot holding the wing together but to have that spacific spot hit every time amazed me. Also add to that the fact that that one point was built very robustly and you have to ask why.

Other problems with US aircraft. P-51 wings riping off at high speed and the two mentioned points here. (I havent noticed a big problem with the F4F.) I do wonder sometimes if Olga in his atempt to run with historic accuracy may still hold a bit of the old compitions between Russia and America that stemed after WWII

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 01:44 AM
Instead we have P-47s and P-38s that are generally considered well built aircraft with solid construction that loose tails in a few hits (maybe thats right) and then we have aircraft like Yak's which were generally considered to be fragile taking twice as many hits and still flying (and maybe thats right?). Or a Lagg-3 which wasn't considered the guanrateed varnished flying coffin for nothing

That's more a case of some aircraft being overmodelled, though. Tails coming off after 3 to 4 20mm hits is probably correct, it should just happen to more of them (just about all single engined fighters). It might also be a case of build quality not being taken into account. I am not sure how you'd take that into account in the sim as on the Russian forums people would whine if the Russian aircraft were modelled to a spec for speeds, durability, etc. which would be realistic for typical squadron service but which wouldn't match the published performance data (which tends to be for factory fresh examples from factories with reputations for good production).

In any case for the Lagg-3 the problem wasn't the construction strength, more the weight meaning performance was lower than LW planes. If you are too slow then you get shot down, almost irrespective of construction details.


P-51 wings riping off at high speed

People have tested using DeviceLink. They come off at the same G point as others. The problem is that the P51 elevators are too effective at high speed.


Now I know that at the fold there was not alot holding the wing together but to have that spacific spot hit every time amazed me. Also add to that the fact that that one point was built very robustly and you have to ask why.

The wings on all the aircraft seem to be divided into sections for damage model reasons and for the visual model. It is probably a factor of the split having been made (for convenience) for the damage and visual models at the wing fold point. You have to model a wing section at that point for folding, so you may as well save effort and make that the unit for visual modelling of damage too.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-05-2005, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Gosh - it never occurred to me that the reason why there were so many US warbirds still flying was because their construction was so much better(!)

Nothing whatsoever to do with money, availability, patriotic reasons etc.

Ta,
Norris So, Germans got no money and are not patriotic? Sorry, disagree 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are "less patriotic" when it concerns the war, I think you will find. Or that has certainly been the case for most of the Germans that I have known.

Still, it is nice to see 190s and 262s getting flown again no matter what the source.

Ta,
Norris

Gibbage1
11-05-2005, 09:12 AM
Here is another view of the FW-190 tail in a 3/4 view like the P-38 and P-47.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/fwtail.jpg

As you see, the drawing is similar to the side view I posted earlier but there is more structure forward of the smallest section of the tail, but it still shows that all internal structure seems to stop just forward of the #27! I have about 5 differant cutaway drawings of the FW-190 in my large collection of aircraft scematics (I model them for a living, so I collect a LOT!) and they all show the same thing on each and every one. No structure extending back from the small portion of the tail. There is some, but amazingly little!!! I also have an internal drawing of the FW-190 V1 that shows the same thing, but it being a prototype I dont think it shows what was in a more modern serial production FW.

Faust, if you have a more detailed scematic of the tail section, feel free to prove me wrong. But so far everything I have shows the FW tail to be rather weak!

Also, I just noticed, with the way the tail wheel retracts in, there is no room for sturucture.

Kocur_
11-05-2005, 09:41 AM
There you go:
http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/3480/fw190tail22tc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/1660/fw190tail15eo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
You keep forgetting about skin, while it performs significant role in structure strenght. Thats what makes difference between say, Hurricane or Yaks and similar technologically obsolete planes and all modern ones.

Viper2005_
11-05-2005, 09:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Anyway, most aeroplanes in this game don't lose their tails - they break just aft of the cockpit.

NB, a lot of you guys seem to be confusing strength and stiffness.

Strength isn't the limiting factor in this case; the limiting factor is stiffness due to the low second moment of area of the aft fuselage; failure is likely to be in a buckling mode, most likely after flutter of the stabilisers.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 09:56 AM
Kocur, your diagram of the Fw190 tail doesn't show a lot of structure other than the skin, but definitely more than Gibbage's. I am surprised that there is relatively little in the way of structure other than the skin. The only sure way to know the strength is to find out details of the skin, what stress was placed on it when constructing it, and then analyse the structure in a computer (or borrow one from Fluyugwerke and shoot things at it!)

TAGERT.
11-05-2005, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
There you go:
http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/3480/fw190tail22tc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/1660/fw190tail15eo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
You keep forgetting about skin, while it performs significant role in structure strenght. Thats what makes difference between say, Hurricane or Yaks and similar technologically obsolete planes and all modern ones. wow, I was just about to reply to Gibbs post saying it was probally a cut away to show the linkages, but, from your picture it is clear, there is not much there! Next neat thing to see would be what is inside that spacer they use between the tail section and the main body on the Dora conversions.

Kocur_
11-05-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The only sure way to know the strength is to find out details of the skin, what stress was placed on it when constructing it

Couldnt say it better!

I'll repeat again: those are STRESSED SKIN constructions. If one doeant know details on skin, he knows nothing on strenght AND stiffness (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) of entire construction.

Designer could put x frames and y longerons/stiffners per z area or put there x/k frames and y/k longerons/stiffners if made also skin thicker by n.

bolillo_loco
11-05-2005, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 3-4 20mm rounds causing the entire tail section to fail is a bit rediculous.

Typically it took about 5 20mm hits (on average) to take out a fighter aircraft. 3 or 4 concentrated on one part of a plane causing structural failure in that region seems pretty reasonable, on average. It's possible for planes to take more, even in one structural component, but an average of 3 or 4 taking out the tail is plausible. The DM of the game is going to be much less sophisticated than the real thing and might be set to model the average and not the exceptional outlying events so much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

perhaps you should take a look at the 3 concentrated hits on the port-side rudder of the P-38 and you may revise your train of thought.

Unless you hit the pilot, engine/cooling system, or 1 fuel tank, it is quite apparent by the photos that 3-5 20mm rounds is not nearly enough to bring down a large fighter. Dozens of photos are around to prove that aircraft can sustain a lot of random cannon fire.

the airframe itself on large aircraft is very resistant to gun fire simply because of its size and the redundancy of supporting structures. One can "what-if" all day long and by the same token it has been stated that 25 .50 cal rounds are enough to bring down a fighter. with the 47 shooting 3,200 rds per minute it is easy to see that it should be killing planes with short bursts in accordance witht the 3-5 20mm rounds to the tail should bring down a fighter.

Grey_Mouser67
11-05-2005, 12:23 PM
I find this whole discussion wholly worthwhile and I hope Oleg is watching...what has been creeping in the back of my mind since I've been reading it is the whold cannon vs. HMG debate.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but maybe it is because of US aircraft's tough construction as well as bomber activity that the Luftwaffe was so intent on cannons and the Fw's and 109's light construction that made HMG's so effective.

HMMMM.... something to think about. It might be that a battery of 4 or 6 HMG's were as effective on Luftwaffe aircraft as 2 20mm's were on US aircraft...not because of the HE content or the kinetic energy, but because of the construction of the aircraft...we may have been looking at this weapons argument all wrong.

faustnik
11-05-2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But so far everything I have shows the FW tail to be rather weak!



Really? Where did you get your engineering degree? Do you have any evidence to support your conclusion that the Fw190 problems with a weak tail section?

faustnik
11-05-2005, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:the airframe itself on large aircraft is very resistant to gun fire simply because of its size and the redundancy of supporting structures. One can "what-if" all day long and by the same token it has been stated that 25 .50 cal rounds are enough to bring down a fighter. with the 47 shooting 3,200 rds per minute it is easy to see that it should be killing planes with short bursts in accordance witht the 3-5 20mm rounds to the tail should bring down a fighter.

Yes, there is no way you could compare a P-38 to say, a Bf109. The P-38 is twice the size and weight. The P-38 would be able to absorb more damage. The B-17 was not tough because of armor plating, it was tough because it was well built and just plain big.

JtD
11-05-2005, 12:31 PM
While the aluminium used on the A6M was more brittle than the alu used on other aircraft, it could also take more stress.

In other words, if you bend it, it would need more force to be bend up to the point it is braking, but could not be bent as far as others contemporary alu alloys before braking.

badatflyski
11-05-2005, 12:40 PM
Wauw!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
thanks kocur for those pictures, now i see why it was impossible to make dammage on the control cables of the 190 if firing from straight six...this big bulkhead/plate (n?5 on ya picture)in the tail looks just like an armor plate!if you put the tailwheel there you get even more "armor" for the controls! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

VW-IceFire
11-05-2005, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
Wauw!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
thanks kocur for those pictures, now i see why it was impossible to make dammage on the control cables of the 190 if firing from straight six...this big bulkhead/plate (n?5 on ya picture)in the tail looks just like an armor plate!if you put the tailwheel there you get even more "armor" for the controls! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Also the FW190 used control rods rather than just cabling. The P-47 used a similar method. Taking out controls for either of these should be a bit more difficult than on a similar aircraft but with control cables rather than rods.

Kocur_
11-05-2005, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
Wauw!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
thanks kocur for those pictures, now i see why it was impossible to make dammage on the control cables of the 190 if firing from straight six...this big bulkhead/plate (n?5 on ya picture)in the tail looks just like an armor plate!if you put the tailwheel there you get even more "armor" for the controls! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

You is wrong. Are you aeronautical engineer? Also P-47 fuselage was weaker than La-7s, because siberian birch is very tough, just like kevlar! And MiG-3U was so sophisticated, that it travelled in time from april 1943 when it flew first, back to 1942, so it is labelled correctly. Not to mention...Ahh...Anyway: be sure!

carguy_
11-05-2005, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
HMMMM.... something to think about. It might be that a battery of 4 or 6 HMG's were as effective on Luftwaffe aircraft as 2 20mm's were on US aircraft...not because of the HE content or the kinetic energy, but because of the construction of the aircraft...we may have been looking at this weapons argument all wrong.

Something to think about?!DUH!What the h@ll were you thinking?
It is elementary!

Chadburn
11-05-2005, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I find this whole discussion wholly worthwhile and I hope Oleg is watching...what has been creeping in the back of my mind since I've been reading it is the whold cannon vs. HMG debate.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but maybe it is because of US aircraft's tough construction as well as bomber activity that the Luftwaffe was so intent on cannons and the Fw's and 109's light construction that made HMG's so effective.

HMMMM.... something to think about. It might be that a battery of 4 or 6 HMG's were as effective on Luftwaffe aircraft as 2 20mm's were on US aircraft...not because of the HE content or the kinetic energy, but because of the construction of the aircraft...we may have been looking at this weapons argument all wrong.

Not sure about the assumption of LW light construction. Empty weight of FW is more than P51, and the 109 weighs in with planes like the Spit, P39 and P40.

Of course, there are the heavyweight single-engined planes like the P47 and Corsair which are definitely in their own class for robust construction.

horseback
11-05-2005, 01:31 PM
One of the problems I see with the P-38, looking at it as a target, is all that empty space in the middle. Those booms are quite slender and should be correspondingly hard to hit, especially at the root of the tail. At the same time, considering the stresses they had to handle, and the series of reinforcements made to them as the 'compressibility/tail buffet' debate went on between Lockheed and the Army Air Force during its early development, they had to be exceptionally strong, and as the photos posted show, they were.

Has anyone run a track in Arcade mode and taken a look at where the 'de-booming' hits are actually made? It might be instructive if we find where the hit box is and how big it is in this case. It sounds to me as though the DM has an oversized sweet spot.

My brother and I had a toy called "Rock'em Sock'em Robots", a pair of plastic 'robots' in a little boxing ring controlled by hand levers. When your robot's punch landed in the right spot on his opponent's chin, the opponent's head popped up. My brother, having a preference for the color red, always chose the Red Robot. Unfortunately, his favorite robot's chin had a bit of a 'hair trigger'...and I am often reminded of this when DM discussions arise on these forums.

Theoretically, to be fair, both robots should have had the same DM. In practical terms, they did not, and the fault goes to the manufacturer. In real life, or in this case, emulations of real life situations, there is, to paraphrase Yoda, no 'fair', only what is or is not.

To compare the FW 190's sturdiness to that of contemporary American fighters is irrelevant. It was built to a different standard and philosophy. Compared to the Messerschmitt or the Stuka, it was quite sturdy, and could take a beating and get its pilot home more often. Comparisons of ruggedness were necessarily made with one's own experience, ie, within your air force's inventory.

Generalizations about a nation's aircraft can be made, but to compare specific types on the basis of how your favorite compares to other aircraft in your own air force can get unrealistic.

The 190 was much smaller and lighter than a Lightning or Thunderbolt (and it was built in a country where the materials used in its construction were more expensive & harder to obtain), it didn't have the range and payload capacity they had, it wasn't being shot at with cannon as much and it was designed more specifically as an interceptor type. The Lightning and Jug were initially designed as interceptors, but as their roles evolved, so did their design. They became optimized for killing fighters at the end of a long high alt flight, rather than killing bombers and their escorts at medium altitude.

Looking at engineering drawings depicting lots of ribs and stringers tells us nothing if we aren't told what the ribs and stringers are made of or how thick they are. How thick does a piece of aluminum have to be to (and what alloy is it?- different alloys have different properties of malleability, strength and so on) provide the desired strength in one direction, and how much shock or stress from another direction or at a given point will cause it to fail?

The same, of course, goes for the 'skin' of an aircraft. For instance, the P-38 had corrugated inner panelling running from wing tip to wingtip on its wings' stressed skin, which provided additional strength. I'm not aware of the FW featuring anything like this...

What else does the structure have to support? In the case of the P-47, your whole turbosupercharger and associated ducting are back there in the tail. It needs to be stronger than an aircraft which only has some control lines and a rear wheel retraction mechanism, I would think.

Comparing the FW's structural strength to the P-38 or P-47 is like comparing the Mustang's low speed landing characteristics to the Hellcat's and then pronouncing the Mustang 'directionally unstable' because it was never designed to land on a carrier. Oh, I forgot -- it has been done, repeatedly.

At best, the FW might be compared to a Mustang or P-40 in terms of real-life ruggedness--and that is hardly fragile, but since they were not in the same class of ruggedness as the Naval fighters or the P-38 or P-47, they are victims of grossly undermodelled DMs as well.

Oleg appears to have 'slotted' the DMs on an overall scale, ignoring in large part, the differing design philosophies and standards of the originating countries. The FW was 'rugged', therefore it compares favorably to the P-47. The Spitfire was 'delicate', and should be hard to hit, but once hit... The Mustang had a 'glass jaw', therefore its engine stops at a cross look. God only knows where he gets his ideas about the P-38, Hellcat or Corsair's DMs.

cheers

horseback

horseback
11-05-2005, 02:02 PM
The 190A-3 was about 400kg lighter than the Merlin Mustang (6,393 lbs to 7,635 lbs), and the A-8 was listed about 9kg heavier (7,652lbs to 7,635 lbs), although fully loaded, it was nearly a ton lighter than the Pony (10,800lbs max to 12,100lbs max takeoff).

The P-40E weighed 6,900 lbs empty compared with the contemporary model of the 109, the F-4, which weighed in at 5,269lbs. The P-40N-1 (the lightweight of the series) weighed 6,400 lbs empty compared to the 109G-6 at 5,893 lbs. Loaded, the margins increased appreciably between the Warhawk and the 109. The Spitfire Mk IX weighed in at 5,610 lbs empty, so it, at least, was about the same weight class as the 109, although any scale modeller will be able to tell you that the 109 was significantly more compact than the Warhawk or the Spit.

cheers

horseback

Buzzsaw-
11-05-2005, 02:55 PM
Salute

More views of the P-47:

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/P47cutaw.jpg

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/lwrfuslg.jpg

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/uprfuslg.jpg

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/tailcone.jpg

You can see how densely packed the structure is.

Grey_Mouser67
11-05-2005, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
HMMMM.... something to think about. It might be that a battery of 4 or 6 HMG's were as effective on Luftwaffe aircraft as 2 20mm's were on US aircraft...not because of the HE content or the kinetic energy, but because of the construction of the aircraft...we may have been looking at this weapons argument all wrong.

Something to think about?!DUH!What the h@ll were you thinking?
It is elementary! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Carguy....you are a complete A$$.

Every argument I have read in this forum has been about kinetic energy, HE vs AP, Incindiary vs non incendiary...nobody has argued the issue from the standpoint of structural integrity of the aircraft themselves...not you for sure! Elementary??? give me a break you are an oxygen thief.

Grey_Mouser67
11-05-2005, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I find this whole discussion wholly worthwhile and I hope Oleg is watching...what has been creeping in the back of my mind since I've been reading it is the whold cannon vs. HMG debate.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but maybe it is because of US aircraft's tough construction as well as bomber activity that the Luftwaffe was so intent on cannons and the Fw's and 109's light construction that made HMG's so effective.

HMMMM.... something to think about. It might be that a battery of 4 or 6 HMG's were as effective on Luftwaffe aircraft as 2 20mm's were on US aircraft...not because of the HE content or the kinetic energy, but because of the construction of the aircraft...we may have been looking at this weapons argument all wrong.

Not sure about the assumption of LW light construction. Empty weight of FW is more than P51, and the 109 weighs in with planes like the Spit, P39 and P40.

Of course, there are the heavyweight single-engined planes like the P47 and Corsair which are definitely in their own class for robust construction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not an assumption...you'll need to go back and look at some of my posts, but it is about statics and dynamics...bending beams. Weight is part of it, but so is the distibution of that weight from the center of the bending beam...think of the fuselage as a bending beam. The more members, further away from the center, more resistant weight the better. Someone mentioned a stressed skin...yes that would improve strength immensly because that is the furthest away from the center. Also, large aircraft ( or large hollow tubes) are more efficient by nature than smaller tubes...it takes more material to create the same resistance.

Chadburn
11-05-2005, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I find this whole discussion wholly worthwhile and I hope Oleg is watching...what has been creeping in the back of my mind since I've been reading it is the whold cannon vs. HMG debate.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but maybe it is because of US aircraft's tough construction as well as bomber activity that the Luftwaffe was so intent on cannons and the Fw's and 109's light construction that made HMG's so effective.

HMMMM.... something to think about. It might be that a battery of 4 or 6 HMG's were as effective on Luftwaffe aircraft as 2 20mm's were on US aircraft...not because of the HE content or the kinetic energy, but because of the construction of the aircraft...we may have been looking at this weapons argument all wrong.

Not sure about the assumption of LW light construction. Empty weight of FW is more than P51, and the 109 weighs in with planes like the Spit, P39 and P40.

Of course, there are the heavyweight single-engined planes like the P47 and Corsair which are definitely in their own class for robust construction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not an assumption...you'll need to go back and look at some of my posts, but it is about statics and dynamics...bending beams. Weight is part of it, but so is the distibution of that weight from the center of the bending beam...think of the fuselage as a bending beam. The more members, further away from the center, more resistant weight the better. Someone mentioned a stressed skin...yes that would improve strength immensly because that is the furthest away from the center. Also, large aircraft ( or large hollow tubes) are more efficient by nature than smaller tubes...it takes more material to create the same resistance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I was pointing out was the general categorizing of 109 and 190's as "light construction" vs US craft's "tough construction." As a generalization, I don't agree.

I do agree though, that there are certain US planes - as I said earlier - that are definitely in a class of their own. The P47, Corsair, Hellcat...these would definitely be examples of "tough construction" for a single engine fighter.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 05:02 PM
Unless you hit the pilot, engine/cooling system, or 1 fuel tank, it is quite apparent by the photos that 3-5 20mm rounds is not nearly enough to bring down a large fighter. Dozens of photos are around to prove that aircraft can sustain a lot of random cannon fire.

You have to look at what the average resistance of the components is. Photos of aircraft that made it back with more shows that there may be outlier events possible with more rounds hitting, or might be normal occurences. Without analysing all such incidents it's speculation. Now I am sure that various nations did testing to determine typical strengths. The tests for the by the RAF have been posted, the RAF also did an in depth analysis of planes it shot down in an attempt to determine the most likely causes (essentially hitting crew or engines or fire) in 1942 I think. There are probably assessments or tests out there for the P38, P47, etc if we could find them. I'd be very surprised if any of them suggested that the tail sections could take more than an average of 3 20mm explosive cannon hits and remain attached in flight.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 05:05 PM
Couldnt say it better!

I'll repeat again: those are STRESSED SKIN constructions. If one doeant know details on skin, he knows nothing on strenght AND stiffness () of entire construction

A similar effect occurs for various wooden constructions too. For example formed 'boat hull' type construction in some Soviet fighters, or the sandwich construction of the Mosquito where the skin forms an integral part of the overall structure. In some wooden constructions the wooden skin was simply attached over the ribs and so on and wasn't an integral part of the structure but an aerodynamic covering.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 05:07 PM
Maybe if there are no available reports on tests on P38 and P47 tail units and cannon shells maybe it would be time to email Myth Busters. Explosives, big bits of metal, wind tunnels - sounds like they would have fun with it.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 05:20 PM
I had a look at the P38 tail damage pics, bolillo_loco. They all appear to be flak apart from single 20mm cannon hits through the fins. I don't see how this supports a suggestion for the tail being able to take more than 3 20mm cannon hits on average.

bolillo_loco
11-05-2005, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:the airframe itself on large aircraft is very resistant to gun fire simply because of its size and the redundancy of supporting structures. One can "what-if" all day long and by the same token it has been stated that 25 .50 cal rounds are enough to bring down a fighter. with the 47 shooting 3,200 rds per minute it is easy to see that it should be killing planes with short bursts in accordance witht the 3-5 20mm rounds to the tail should bring down a fighter.

Yes, there is no way you could compare a P-38 to say, a Bf109. The P-38 is twice the size and weight. The P-38 would be able to absorb more damage. The B-17 was not tough because of armor plating, it was tough because it was well built and just plain big. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I feel that I must leave now and never come back, faustnik and myself have finally agreed on something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

bolillo_loco
11-05-2005, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I had a look at the P38 tail damage pics, bolillo_loco. They all appear to be flak apart from single 20mm cannon hits through the fins. I don't see how this supports a suggestion for the tail being able to take more than 3 20mm cannon hits on average.

read the caption

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Picture141.jpg

3 - HE 20mm Mg 151 round and the port rudder is largely intact and still functioning. This is the top 2/3 of the rudder the bottom could take a hit and not tear it away bringing the total up to 4 20mm hits and the rudder is intact. 2 rudders - 8 hits and the tail has not come off. The elevator would be able to absorb even more hits with a spacing like this so the total number of rounds that could strike the tail at random intervals is in the order of 20 HE rounds. It is quite obvious that a fighter the size of a P-38 would require many times more than 3-5 20mm rounds to bring it down (tail section alone)

btw what is the significance between flak and fighter cannon fire? other than flak is usually of a much larger caliber.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 07:37 PM
Ok, there is at least one instance of 3 20mm rounds. But how common was it for this to be survivable? Without the preponderance of evidence (i.e. an average) a single incident tells us very little.


btw what is the significance between flak and fighter cannon fire? other than flak is usually of a much larger caliber.

88mm flak as opposed to 20mm or 37mm flak which was pretty much the same as aircraft weaponry) was detonated by proximity. Lots of fragmentation spread over a larger area rather than a contact explosion, so there is a qualitative difference.

TAGERT.
11-05-2005, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Ok, there is at least one instance of 3 20mm rounds. But how common was it for this to be survivable? Without the preponderance of evidence (i.e. an average) a single incident tells us very little. There are lies, dam lies, and the worst of all.. statistics.

Hard to employ statistics here, in that as you noted, we dont have any data on the ones that did not make it back, that and no big effort was bing put into keeping stats on the ones that did. More important things going on, like winning a war, not saving data for some game to use in 60 years.

Thus you dont have a data base to say what percet of them made it back when hit *somthing* like this.. But one thing you can say, is that when hit *like* this it was not enough to take the tail off. No math, statistics, graphs needed, just a little comon since.

Therefore, if you hit is like this, it would look like this, simple. If you did hit it *something* like this, it would look *something* like this. How differnt would it look?? Hard to say, that is where the WAG comes in. All damage models are WAGs imho.

Daiichidoku
11-05-2005, 07:56 PM
bearing in mind that 20 or 37mm flak damage on fighters would more often than not be from direct fire, and easily, wether from ground or fighters, would ammount to the vast amjority of hits upon, say a P 38, as oppsosed to 88mm flak hits, the majority of which would be placed upon level bombers

not to say that ANY type in WW2 had not suffered mildly to wildly from ANY type of fire, direct or indirect

am i way off base here, or would it seem that in an 88mm burst (not a direct hit) close to a P 38 or B 17, that the B 17 would actually suffer more from it, at least generally speaking?



sorry, this thread needed a stupidity boost...was getting to lucid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

bolillo_loco
11-05-2005, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Ok, there is at least one instance of 3 20mm rounds. But how common was it for this to be survivable? Without the preponderance of evidence (i.e. an average) a single incident tells us very little.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">btw what is the significance between flak and fighter cannon fire? other than flak is usually of a much larger caliber.

88mm flak as opposed to 20mm or 37mm flak which was pretty much the same as aircraft weaponry) was detonated by proximity. Lots of fragmentation spread over a larger area rather than a contact explosion, so there is a qualitative difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure where you got confused about my post, but I asked what is the difference between flak and aircraft guns other than the heavy stuff? meaning flak 20mm mg 151 and aircraft mounted mg 151. I clearly stated I did not mean the heavy stuff so I did not need an explanation about 37mm flak and up I am already well familiar with it.

you must be missing something with the pictures because there are clearly a lot of 20mm damage photo shots. a single 20mm does very little damage to the 38's rudder as the evidence of 6+ photos has shown. The idea that 3-5 20mm hits to the rudders and or tail would make the entire P-38 tail structure fail is quite silly in light of all the photographical evidence put forth in this post.

Buzzsaw-
11-05-2005, 09:50 PM
Salute

I don't think the issue is that much whether or not a 190 should be losing its tail, it rather whether a P-47 should.

When compared to other aircraft, the P-47 should lose its tail VERY rarely, not as regular occurance.

Here is a cutaway of a 109E4. Haven't got one of a later 109, although they are unlikely to be much more heavily built.

Click on thumbnail and double click on image.

http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/4506/e4cutaway5sm.th.jpg (http://img473.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e4cutaway5sm.jpg)

JtD
11-06-2005, 12:11 AM
The 109's rear fuselage was extensivly reconstructed from the E to the F series.

I still don't know why you still get all excited over a large/small number of spars/ribs. It has been pointed out before: thickness, material and diameter of the stressed skin (featured on almost all WW2 planes) made up for most the strenght of a section.

Gibbage1
11-06-2005, 12:29 AM
HE rounds tend to blow off skin, and once the skin is blown away, what do you have left? Ribs, spars, and that stuff.

Buzzsaw-
11-06-2005, 01:10 AM
Salute

Ribs and spars are crucial if the skin has been blown off. The more spars and ribs, the smaller the section which will be blown off too. Each rib and spar is a rivet point for the skin to be attached.

Second, speaking of the aluminum skin, the thickness of the aluminum used for skinning the USAAF aircraft was generally thicker than that used on Axis aircraft.

The worst case scenario was the Zero, which used a incredibly thin sheet. To the point, that there was only one spot the pilot could stand on when mounting the aircraft.

USAAF aircraft were skinned heavily enough that a person could safely walk on the wing. If you did that on the 109, you would have damage.

Here is a site which a discussion of the modern day rebuilding of a Zero:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185354-1.html

A quote:

"Most of the airplane is built of T-7178 aluminum, a top-secret variety developed by the Japanese for the purpose. It is lighter and stronger than the normal aluminum we used at the time, but more brittle. If you push anywhere on the skin with your thumb (gently, please!), it feels like a heavy-duty tin foil."

Gibbage1
11-06-2005, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
USAAF aircraft were skinned heavily enough that a person could safely walk on the wing. If you did that on the 109, you would have damage.

You have any of those photo's with 20+ people sitting/standing on a P-51 wing to take a squad photo? You would NEVER see something like that on an Axis aircraft.

Buzzsaw-
11-06-2005, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The 109's rear fuselage was extensivly reconstructed from the E to the F series.

Maybe you can let us see a cutaway. Or fill us in on the details of what was changed.

Gibbage1
11-06-2005, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The 109's rear fuselage was extensivly reconstructed from the E to the F series.

Maybe you can let us see a cutaway. Or fill us in on the details of what was changed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I looked and cant find a good cutaway of the tail, but I have seen pics of the tail opened up during a restoration and there is not much in there.

http://www.fighterfactory.net/restoration/assets/images/messerschmitt-109-fuselage.jpg

JtD
11-06-2005, 02:00 AM
While you are right about the general effect of spars and ribs, they alone are hardly enough to support the structure. The cannot be compared to the spars in fabric covered planes like the Hurricane. If you take a look at the damage pictures shown in this topic you will notice that often the supporting ribs got blown out along with the covering aluminium sheets.

If I had a cutaway drawing or details about the 109 modifications, I would have presented them. Only things I know for sure:
- vertical stab was modififed/strenghtened so it did not need the support rod of the Emils anymore
- a bulkhead was placed somewhere in the back of the fuselage
- fuel tanks/fuel tank arrangement was changed
- the IL-2 database claims "the rear fuselage was considerably strenghtened"

JtD
11-06-2005, 02:38 AM
In a quick test I fired the He-111 H-6 20mm MG/FF nose cannon at a P-38J standing in front of me from dead 6.

Maximum complete cycle:
After 7 hits the elevator came off
After 2 more hits the right rudder came off
After 3 more hits the left rudder came off
After 3 more hits the tail came off

I was aiming for seperate components.

The lowest I managed was to shoot rudders off with one hit, shoot elevator off with 2 hits and to shoot one boom off with 3 hits.

I also know that attacks from the side are more effective than from dead 6.

From dead six, however, the Lightning will be killed by something in the range from 2 to 13 hits.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 04:59 AM
But one thing you can say, is that when hit *like* this it was not enough to take the tail off.

No, Tagert. What you can say is that when hit like this SOME made it back. I can dig up pictures of Mosquitos that came back after going through powerlines but it doesn't mean that being able to do this is likely, just that it is possible. These might be outlier events of common events and without either statistical analysis or structural analysis and testing it is hard to say. My argument was given that the average of 5 20mm cannon shells would take down a fighter, the chances of taking 3 shells in a single tail boom of a P38 and making it back is probably not very high.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 05:00 AM
I am not sure where you got confused about my post, but I asked what is the difference between flak and aircraft guns other than the heavy stuff? meaning flak 20mm mg 151 and aircraft mounted mg 151. I clearly stated I did not mean the heavy stuff so I did not need an explanation about 37mm flak and up I am already well familiar with it.

My error, my only defence being it was late when I posted!

Kocur_
11-06-2005, 05:42 AM
2cm Flak shell: 0.120kg,
3.7cm Flak shell: 0.556kg,
MG FF(/M) and MG151/20 shells: 0,115kg and 0,92kg (Minengeschoss).

20mm Flak and 20mm aerial cannons ammo was not interchangeable.

Kocur_
11-06-2005, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Couldnt say it better!

I'll repeat again: those are STRESSED SKIN constructions. If one doeant know details on skin, he knows nothing on strenght AND stiffness () of entire construction

A similar effect occurs for various wooden constructions too. For example formed 'boat hull' type construction in some Soviet fighters, or the sandwich construction of the Mosquito where the skin forms an integral part of the overall structure. In some wooden constructions the wooden skin was simply attached over the ribs and so on and wasn't an integral part of the structure but an aerodynamic covering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LaGG/La, MiGs and wooden Il-2s all had wooden but semi-monocoque construction: wooden frames and longerons covered with birch plywood skin. Very different to Mosquito technology.

Btw: there were also attemts to create composite wood/aluminium material: French "Plymax" used in MS406 was plywood and aluminium sheets glued together.

Kocur_
11-06-2005, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
USAAF aircraft were skinned heavily enough that a person could safely walk on the wing. If you did that on the 109, you would have damage.

You have any of those photo's with 20+ people sitting/standing on a P-51 wing to take a squad photo? You would NEVER see something like that on an Axis aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not? 20 x 80 = 1600kg stress. Assuming wing weighted, say 200kg and the plane was flying at its max stress limit, say 8g, the wing would be resisting...8 x 200 = 1600kghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 06:11 AM
LaGG/La, MiGs and wooden Il-2s all had wooden but semi-monocoque construction: wooden frames and longerons covered with birch plywood skin. Very different to Mosquito technology.

I've seen pictures of the construction of the I-16 which show layers of impregnated plywood being layered diagonally (different directions for each layer?) much like some boat hull constrction techniques. It's different to the Mosquito's process, but not the same as simple unstressed skinning as apparently the skin in this case was a load bearing member. It was strong, but if the damage was such that the skin started stripping it meant a great loss of strength and sudden failure.

The Mosquito's process was a sandwich construction on top of a softwood skeleton. Interestingly it wasn't a saver of strategic resources as the woods were actually difficult to source and the skeleton wood had to be changed during the production run due to shortages. What the Mosquito did offer was an easing on demands for metal workers and the ability to use furniture workers (G-Plan particularly in the UK) to make it. This, and distributed contracted out production was the strategic saving.


Btw: there were also attemts to create composite wood/aluminium material: French "Plymax" used in MS406 was plywood and aluminium sheets glued together.

The Hornet also used some aluminium plywood composite construction. I'd have to look it up in my books for the details, though.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 06:13 AM
The lowest I managed was to shoot rudders off with one hit, shoot elevator off with 2 hits and to shoot one boom off with 3 hits.

That implies at least against the MG FF (what is the ammunition load?) the P38 is pretty tough.

Kocur_
11-06-2005, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LaGG/La, MiGs and wooden Il-2s all had wooden but semi-monocoque construction: wooden frames and longerons covered with birch plywood skin. Very different to Mosquito technology.

I've seen pictures of the construction of the I-16 which show layers of impregnated plywood being layered diagonally (different directions for each layer?) much like some boat hull constrction techniques. It's different to the Mosquito's process, but not the same as simple unstressed skinning as apparently the skin in this case was a load bearing member. It was strong, but if the damage was such that the skin started stripping it meant a great loss of strength and sudden failure.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Similar technologies were used in some WW1 and later planes: wooden fuselage made of veneer strips layed diagonally: one layer oblique leftwards, the other rightwards and so on. Produced in halfs, joined together and with only very few frames inside. Examples would be 1917 LFG Roland D.I and 1923 SPAD 51C1.
Still however fuselages of planes I mentioned above had "conventional" wooden semi-monocoque construction.

Kocur_
11-06-2005, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The lowest I managed was to shoot rudders off with one hit, shoot elevator off with 2 hits and to shoot one boom off with 3 hits.

That implies at least against the MG FF (what is the ammunition load?) the P38 is pretty tough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MG FF used only "conventional" 115g HE round.
MG FF/M are cannons able to fire 92g Minengeschoss rounds.

TAGERT.
11-06-2005, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
No, Tagert. Yes, Aaron.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
What you can say is that when hit like this SOME made it back. Disagre 100%


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I can dig up pictures of Mosquitos that came back after going through powerlines but it doesn't mean that being able to do this is likely, just that it is possible. Re-read my post, your missing the point.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
These might be outlier events of common events and without either statistical analysis or structural analysis and testing it is hard to say. Roger, it is hard to say EITHER WAY, thus your *opinion* that it could not is just as valid as someones *opinion* that it could. The picture proves one thing, that whne hit like that with 20mm it did not result in the tail comming off, FACT. Only difference between your *opinion* and ours is that we have a picture to support the statemnt.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
My argument was given that the average of 5 20mm cannon shells would take down a fighter, the chances of taking 3 shells in a single tail boom of a P38 and making it back is probably not very high. That is your *opiniion* and your welcome to it, but you have nothing to suport it, where as *we* do have a picture showing a P38 that did take 20mm hits and did not take the tail off, FACT.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 11:33 AM
Disagre 100%

So if some didn't make it back then and you disagree 100% then you mean to say that none made it back? I am sure you don't mean to say this. The 'Disagree 100%' thing really is getting very tiresome, though.


that whne hit like that with 20mm it did not result in the tail comming off, FACT.

No, it shows it did not ALWAYS come off. Please learn some logic!


That is your *opiniion* and your welcome to it, but you have nothing to suport it, where as *we* do have a picture showing a P38 that did take 20mm hits and did not take the tail off, FACT.

I am making an estimate based on limited information and acknowledging the fact that some made it back with 3 20mm cannon rounds hitting them. You seem to be arguing based on a logical fallacy that some coming back means all could come back (I know you have stated that logically you don't believe this is the case, but then you seem to keep implying it is).

You do great work on flight statistics in the game, though!

Kocur_
11-06-2005, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
My argument was given that the average of 5 20mm cannon shells would take down a fighter, the chances of taking 3 shells in a single tail boom of a P38 and making it back is probably not very high. That is your *opiniion* and your welcome to it, but you have nothing to suport it, where as *we* do have a picture showing a P38 that did take 20mm hits and did not take the tail off, FACT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we desperately need to separate losing 'tail' meant as horizontal stab only, and losing entire tail section because of boom(s) cut off by hits on booms within, say, 1meter from leading edge of vertical stab. Now: we didnt yet see pictures of P-38 surviving that, did we. And frankly, I dont think we will see P-38 surviving 3 20mm HE/MG hits on booms within 1m from leading edge of vertical stab. Not stabilizers are in questions AFAIU, but booms right before vertical stabs.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 12:39 PM
Now: we didnt yet see pictures of P-38 surviving that, did we.

To be honest I thought the debate was about losing the tail due to hits on the booms, hence the discussion about tail boom construction.

Chadburn
11-06-2005, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:

That is your *opiniion* and your welcome to it, but you have nothing to suport it, where as *we* do have a picture showing a P38 that did take 20mm hits and did not take the tail off, FACT.

But it's not Aaron_GT's opinion that matters anyway.

The question is whether there's a bug that's causing the entire tail section to fail too easily. The pictures of the damaged vert stab show that it can absorb hits in r/l, but if the vert stab is hit in game, does it cause the entire tail assembly break?

Someone needs to show what is actually occuring in the game to establish exactly what the problem is, and so far 10 pages and no tracks or screen shots to demonstrate it.

TAGERT.
11-06-2005, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So if some didn't make it back then and you disagree 100% then you mean to say that none made it back? I am sure you don't mean to say this. The 'Disagree 100%' thing really is getting very tiresome, though. Using your twisted logic maybe, but if you stick with what I said as aposed to your twisting what I said it is very simple.. but clearly not simple enough for some.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
No, it shows it did not ALWAYS come off. That is your opinion, and your welcome to it, but in light of the FACT that you dont have anything to suport that opinion, I will once again have to disagree 100%.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Please learn some logic! Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you!


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I am making an estimate based on limited information and acknowledging the fact that some made it back with 3 20mm cannon rounds hitting them. Roger, your guessing at it. Your guessing that some P38s that took a hit like that caused the tail to come off and others did not. So, how would you explain that? Thicker paint? LOL! FACT is we have a picture showing a P38 taking hits in the rudder that did not result in the tail comming off.. FACT is you dont have a picture showing a P38 taking hits in the same spot of the rudder that did result in the tail comming off, FACT.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
You seem to be arguing based on a logical fallacy that some coming back means all could come back (I know you have stated that logically you don't believe this is the case, but then you seem to keep implying it is). No, it is you who are confused, no logic needed, no statistics needed, my statement is simple, that picture shows that if you hit a P38 in that spot as it was hit it does not cause the tail to come off.. Now if you have a picture that shows that specific P38 with extra ribs, I would be willing to adj my statement. But, I think it is pretty safe to say that tail is like the rest.. Now you can beat your chest and say the paint was thicker on Friday because bob was doing the painting on Friday and Jim was doing the painting on Monday, but I think that line of argument would just make you look even sillier.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
You do great work on flight statistics in the game, though! I have yet to do any statistics! Please learn the definition of statistics!

TAGERT.
11-06-2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
But it's not Aaron_GT's opinion that matters anyway. Agreed 100%!


Originally posted by Chadburn:
The question is whether there's a bug that's causing the entire tail section to fail too easily. The pictures of the damaged vert stab show that it can absorb hits in r/l, but if the vert stab is hit in game, does it cause the entire tail assembly break?

Someone needs to show what is actually occuring in the game to establish exactly what the problem is, and so far 10 pages and no tracks or screen shots to demonstrate it. Agreed 100%! If it hit the sweat spot of the thinnest part of the boom, I would expect it could cause a disconect on one side... and the stress of that could casue the other side to fail even if not hit.

But, I was refering to the picture of it hitting it in the top of the rudder section, in that case, we know it did not cause the tail to come off.

BM357_Sniper
11-06-2005, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Mad_Moses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Persecutor_352:

However, the P-38 damage model is simply unacceptable. We fly regularly in the Clash of Titans scenario. One shot from a FW-190 or Bf-109 to the tail structure of the Lightening results in the removal of both tail structures and the horizontal stabilizer. There is no way that can be historically accurate, but even if it is, the usability and playability of the aircraft has been rendered NIL.

Well.... I have found the opposite to be true for me.

Flying German aircraft against the P-38, mostly on the War Clouds server, I have found the P-38 to be about the toughest plane to bring down out of all the Allied planes. Maybe the P-63 slightly tougher because it's a smaller target.

The P-38s are very tough directly from the rear. On one occasion I put 46 20mm rounds into one directly from the rear before I ran out of ammo. I actually blew one of his engines right off its mount but he still was able to fly home.

On the other hand I have been able on a couple occasions to blow their tail boom off when with a single brood side (deflection) shot when, but you can take off a wing off any plane (even with .50 cal) with a brood side shot.

I would suggest not opening yourself up for a deflection shots on the rear of your plane when all possible. The P-38L will out dive and out climb (shallow climb) anything the Germans have. Most guys try to fly the 38 like a turn fighter which is a death sentence considering how big a target it is and the large caliber weapon it is facing.

Regards,
MM </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of us know this to be true. The P-38 should be able to out run the 190 in almost all cases, yet in COT 190's routinely do a 180 and catch an extending P38 doing 400+ mph and take them out with one hit from a MK108, at any range. Where do I download afterburners and MK108 guidance systems at?

NorrisMcWhirter
11-06-2005, 02:41 PM
...one hit from a MK108, at any range

Somehow, I don't think I believe you.

Ta,
Norris

BM357_Sniper
11-06-2005, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:

The Buzzsaw argument is based on the conjecture that the two booms of the 38 are half the strength of a single fuselage plane based on presumption equal mass..



No they aren't. My arguments are based on looking at the diagrams of the boom structures of the P-38, as well as noting the thickness of the aluminium which comprises them.


Originally posted by Professor_06:

Ok here are some facts

The max takeoff weight of a FW190 is about 10,000lbs.

The max takeoff weight of a P38J is about 20,000lbs



In regards to this completely spurious argument that the weight of the P-38 is double the weight of a 190, so therefore somehow that means the P-38 is twice as strong... Complete nonsense. For someone who uses a nickname suggesting some academic knowledge, you have just shown your ignorance.

To start with, the figure you quote for the P-38, i.e 20,000 lbs, is not even close to what the aircraft's dry weight was, which is what we need to look at for the purpose of determining the structural weight.

The P-38L weighed 14,100 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs combat loaded. If we add bombs and rockets, then perhaps the aircraft might come close to 20,000 lbs. However, unless you are suggesting that a 1000 lb bomb slung under the wing adds to the boom strength... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ... then I think we can go with the 14,100 lb figure.

Of that weight, a very large part is a result of there being two engines installed, instead of the single engine in most fighters. Again, those engines confer no benefit to the structural strength of the booms. The weight of each engine and its turbochargers runs about 3,000 lbs.

There is also the fact the P-38 has a wing area of 328 square feet, compared with 196.98 for the 190, which again takes up a very large part of the overall weight total for the aircraft, and again, which obviously does not add strength to the booms. Each of those wings has to be built to carry the weight of the engines in them, and thus the structures are heavier.

When actually looking at the booms, we see they are a stressed skin structure, like the structures of most fighter aircraft of WWII, with struts and longerons to brace. There is nothing special about this structure, and the mass of each boom is considerably less than, for example, the tail structure of a FW190.

Ie. we can quite easily draw the conclusion, that given an equal number of bullet impacts, a P-38 boom will fail before the tail of a conventional aircraft.


Originally posted by Professor_06:

You dont have a clue.



I would suggest you actually take the time to look at some reliable sources of information on the P-38, and educate yourself on its construction, instead of coming on this forum and displaying your ignorance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All that for nothing. Max takeoff weight is what he said. That means, MAX weight at takeoff, not dry weight. You people want to argue more than you want to help.

BM357_Sniper
11-06-2005, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The main problem with the twin booms is the small cross section of each boom. It's roughly 25x35 cm or 10x14 inches. Maybe even smaller at the smallest part.

This is an ideal size for an explosive shell as fielded by the German - esp. when considering the MG with their high explosive potential. It is totally possible that one detonation will cut a single boom clean off.

The other one will have a very hard time sustaining the stresses of the momentum caused by the large elevator/stab alone and even more so if any g's are pulled. The small cross section again makes things worse.

A normal single engined fighter will usually soak up the 20 mm better as there is more room to absorb the blast and has no trouble with any momentums caused by asymetric loads.

Like I said, basic mechanics.

edit: Btw, take a look at Gibbages picture at the first page, esp. this one here:

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture14.jpg

You can see a few holes, possibly caused by 20mm shells. Compare the size of the holes to the size of the boom in the picture and you can imagine the result. I am fairly certain that these were no MG shells, which in that spot should leave holes at least twice as big.

You would still have to hit the internal structure inside, which of course is smaller. My point is that its a smaller target, yet it seems to be hit, A LOT.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 03:25 PM
But it's not Aaron_GT's opinion that matters anyway.

Very true - I am just trying to offer some guesstimates of what the durability might be and arguing against using photos that constitute a self-selecting group of too small a size to be statistically significant as the primary evidence.


but if the vert stab is hit in game, does it cause the entire tail assembly break?

The damage model, as shown in diagrams on the web before, should be fine enough to avoid that, unless there is a bug with the way the hit locations are linked. As far as I remember there are chains of hit locations and failures in some trigger failures in others. The only instance where loss of a control surface should trigger a loss of a structural member would be if the loss induces flutter.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 03:31 PM
FACT is you dont have a picture showing a P38 taking hits in the same spot of the rudder that did result in the tail comming off, FACT.

These would be the ones that didn't make it back, so it's a bit hard to have photographs of these. It's a bit like asking me to show the non existence of fairies by showing you photos of them not existing. It's a logical impossibility.


that picture shows that if you hit a P38 in that spot as it was hit it does not cause the tail to come off..

No, it shows you that in that instance the tail didn't come off. It does not show you the trend. This is what I am trying to get over to you but for some reason it isn't working.


Your guessing that some P38s that took a hit like that caused the tail to come off and others did not. So, how would you explain that?

Variations in a number of factors - the locations hit, variations in quality of metal and build between different aircraft, differences in stresses previously encoutered by each aircraft and possible metal fatigue, stresses incurred after being hit by that aircraft due to differences in manoeuvering. There a number of possible factors involved. Since you are an engineer you should understand this.

BM357_Sniper
11-06-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...one hit from a MK108, at any range

Somehow, I don't think I believe you.

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is in COT, an online war that pers is talking about.

TAGERT.
11-06-2005, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
These would be the ones that didn't make it back, so it's a bit hard to have photographs of these. It's a bit like asking me to show the non existence of fairies by showing you photos of them not existing. It's a logical impossibility. Welcome to my rope-a-dope! Now your catching on.. And now that you fell for it, maybe at this point you will also realise that the lack of such pictures does NOT mean it did happened either!


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
No, Yes


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
it shows you that in that instance the tail didn't come off. Exactally, as it would be for anyother P38 "in that instance". Or is this the point where your going to try and make the argument that one P38 was so different from another that somehing like paint thickness would make a difference?


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It does not show you the trend. Roger, never said it did, statistics without a data base to base any statistics on IS YOUR GAME YOU WANT TO PLAY! I never said anything about a trend, my statement is and was very simple.. but clearly not simple enough for some.. So let me make it crystal for you.. Swap out that P38 with another P38, and IN THAT INSTANCE the end results would have been the same.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
This is what I am trying to get over to you but for some reason it isn't working Oh Im getting it, and I disagree with it 100%


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Variations in a number of factors - LOL! Here it comes.. Bob's paint vs. Franks paint.. I knew you woudl go there in time.. Sorry, disagree 100%


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
the locations hit, Stop, here is where your CONFUSED! Note I said when hit like this, chaning the location of the hit changes the senario greatly, thus not valid to what I have been trying to get you to see.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
variations in quality of metal and build between different aircraft, differences in stresses previously encoutered by each aircraft and possible metal fatigue, Or Bob's brush stroks vs. Franks brush stroks, sorry, but I disagree with that whole line of thinking. Not saying it is does not make a difference, only that the difference is so small RELITIVE to a 20mm striking somethig.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
stresses incurred after being hit by that aircraft due to differences in manoeuvering. Stop, here is where your CONFUSED! Note I said when hit like this, chaning the location of the hit changes the senario greatly, thus not valid to what I have been trying to get you to see.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
There a number of possible factors involved. Most of which I disagree with, and the others like hitting in a different spot do not apply to my statement


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Since you are an engineer you should understand this. I do, it is you that seems to be strugling with it.

faustnik
11-06-2005, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

I feel that I must leave now and never come back, faustnik and myself have finally agreed on something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


What are you talking about, we've only disagreed in one thread, ever. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

bolillo_loco
11-06-2005, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

I feel that I must leave now and never come back, faustnik and myself have finally agreed on something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


What are you talking about, we've only disagreed in one thread, ever. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't make me start name calling :O

Gibbage1
11-06-2005, 07:57 PM
Ow boy... Tagers into it now. The debate will not be lost in endless fact's and pages of quotes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

p1ngu666
11-06-2005, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ow boy... Tagers into it now. The debate will not be lost in endless fact's and pages of quotes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

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

TAGERT.
11-06-2005, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ow boy... Tagers into it now. The debate will not be lost in endless fact's and pages of quotes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif That is like the coffie callin the kettle black?

BfHeFwMe
11-06-2005, 11:04 PM
Dude! You do realize the He-111's 20MM gun is in the tail, not the nose. So the little 7.92MM pop gun can thouroughly trash a P-38 tail with 13 rounds, you still feel that's normal? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

JtD
11-06-2005, 11:18 PM
You are wrong.

Kocur_
11-06-2005, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Dude! You do realize the He-111's 20MM gun is in the tail, not the nose. So the little 7.92MM pop gun can thouroughly trash a P-38 tail with 13 rounds, you still feel that's normal? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

MG FFs (or MG FF/Ms?) were mounted in the NOSES of He-111 from like H-3 on. By the way: could you please post a pic of serial He-111 flexible gun station in the TAIL?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
11-07-2005, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
You are wrong.

Yep. MG-FF in the nose. The tail I think has a un-aimable gun or "stinger" though. I think its 7.62 or 13MM. Im VERY sure its not a 20MM.

Also the Betty has a 20MM in the tail.

JtD
11-07-2005, 09:29 AM
I did a little more testing. Enough to actually call it a test. Again I used the 20mm MG/FF cannon in the Heinkels nose to fire at certain spots on the P-38.

Considering the different effects of the projectiles and the graphical representation with Arcade=1 I think the nose cannon contains MG shells - about every third seems to be one. From now on I'll label it MG shell no matter what it really is.

I managed to shoot the entire tail assembly off with one hit by the MG shell. All you need to do is to hit the horizontal stab (the part the elevator is attached to) and everything breaks off. So listen up: It is not the booms failing that cause the effect.

While I think it is accurate that the stab is completely severed by just one MG shell, it imho does not neccessarily mean the aircraft is doomed. With the binary options this software has it does not seem wise to me to give the P-38 such a critical one hit=kill spot.

However, the only reason this problem becomes so obvious is that the P-38 is an incredibly tough aircraft in every other way. Using HE shells (no MG) it is totally possible to invest about 30 hits into the tail structure alone without causing critical failure.

This toughness combined with the weak spot will lead exactly to the impression our virtual P-38 pilots noted in this topic - 'it's always my tail coming off'.

anarchy52
11-07-2005, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
Most of us know this to be true. The P-38 should be able to out run the 190 in almost all cases, yet in COT 190's routinely do a 180 and catch an extending P38 doing 400+ mph and take them out with one hit from a MK108, at any range. Where do I download afterburners and MK108 guidance systems at?

Some things can not be bought, they need to be acquired with time. Things like situational awareness, ability to asses opponent's E-state, distance and altitude.

As for CoT, I'm pretty familiar with it as my squad participates activelly. It would be better if I don't comment on allied performance in CoT.

faustnik
11-07-2005, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
Most of us know this to be true. The P-38 should be able to out run the 190 in almost all cases, yet in COT 190's routinely do a 180 and catch an extending P38 doing 400+ mph and take them out with one hit from a MK108, at any range. Where do I download afterburners and MK108 guidance systems at?

Do I have to pay a royalty fee to Tagert if I say "<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">GOT TRACK</span>"?

Aaron_GT
11-07-2005, 01:13 PM
I managed to shoot the entire tail assembly off with one hit by the MG shell. All you need to do is to hit the horizontal stab (the part the elevator is attached to) and everything breaks off. So listen up: It is not the booms failing that cause the effect.

That does sound off in the DM department. Maybe the code assumes that if something nasty happens to the horizontal stab then bad stuff should happen to the whole tail, which would be a fair presumption for compact tails, but not the dual tail of the P38.

Kocur_
11-07-2005, 01:57 PM
The way I see it, especially in light of pics above, no way 20mm hit on stabs should cut off entire tail section. Booms and MG shells - I'd say yes, but stabs - NO. A bug!

BSS_CUDA
11-07-2005, 05:25 PM
your talkin an almost 100% failure rate on the rear boom area when hit, the only mildly safe 6 shot for the 38 is dead 6 with no evasive, it will take a few more hits that way, but any hit while evasive and off the boom comes, every time.

Faust I'm trying to get you the Ntrk but I'm havin PC troubles and haven't been able to play multiplayer for some strange reason. I do have 1 trak where I took a sigle hit in the left tail and lost one of my rudders, then in the same flight a few seconds later Sith hit my from the 2 O'clock RT front angle with a single round and took off my whole boom assy

faustnik
11-07-2005, 05:55 PM
I am getting some good "arcade mode" tracks offline. The P-38 tail boom is very vulnerable to all ammo .50 and larger. Try offline against unarmed rookie AI P-38s with P-39Q or Yak-3. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TAGERT.
11-07-2005, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Do I have to pay a royalty fee to Tagert if I say "<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">GOT TRACK</span>"? The <span class="ev_code_red">"GOT TRACK "</span> is a registered trademark of TAGERT.. I mean <span class="ev_code_red">TAGERT</span> and therefore protected by law. Send all proceeds to naca_testing@yahoo.com, I mean <span class="ev_code_red">yahoo.com</span>

faustnik
11-07-2005, 09:33 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif I knew it. "Have ntrack?" just doesn't have the same feel.

TAGERT.
11-07-2005, 09:41 PM
ROTFL! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BfHeFwMe
11-08-2005, 12:36 AM
There is your 20MM cannon, called the stinger. It was a fixed gun fired by the pilot. The nose gun was always a light mg based on MG34.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/u11/ouroboris/upload/2418663.Heinkel111stingertailgun.jpg

You is wrong, be sure.

http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/He111.html

Never had a cannon nose gun, the greenhouse structure couldn't support that kind of hammering. The cockpit gun 3D model is an MG-15 light machine gun evolved from the MG34.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/heer/infantry/mg34/mg34.html

The object viewer be wrong, you is wrong, be sure. A few were fitted with forward 20MM, but they were braced to fire fixed inside the lower gondola.

VVS-Manuc
11-08-2005, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
There is your 20MM cannon, called the stinger. It was a fixed gun fired by the pilot. The nose gun was always a light mg based on MG34.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/u11/ouroboris/upload/2418663.Heinkel111stingertailgun.jpg

You is wrong, be sure.

http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/He111.html

Never had a cannon nose gun, the greenhouse structure couldn't support that kind of hammering. The cockpit gun 3D model is an MG-15 light machine gun evolved from the MG34.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/heer/infantry/mg34/mg34.html

The object viewer be wrong, you is wrong, be sure. A few were fitted with forward 20MM, but they were braced to fire fixed inside the lower gondola.
Heinkel He 111 H-6 fixed tail gun was a 7.92 mm MG 17
He 111 H-6 and later variants were able to mount a 20 mm MG/FF in the nose

luftluuver
11-08-2005, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
There is your 20MM cannon, called the stinger. It was a fixed gun fired by the pilot. The nose gun was always a light mg based on MG34.

You is wrong, be sure.

Never had a cannon nose gun, the greenhouse structure couldn't support that kind of hammering. The cockpit gun 3D model is an MG-15 light machine gun evolved from the MG34.

The object viewer be wrong, you is wrong, be sure. A few were fitted with forward 20MM, but they were braced to fire fixed inside the lower gondola.

The dorsal gunner controlled the stinger mg.

Yes some crew replaced the nose mg with a cannon but the H-11 had the MG/FF cannon as standard. Lots of pics in the S/S He111 book(see pg 40).

JtD
11-08-2005, 08:49 AM
Why don't you fire it in the game once instead of arguing? Also, there are numerous pictures of 20 mm nose cannon armed Heinkels on the internet. If the H-6 has a 7.92 mm MG 15, what does the H-2 carry?

Well, whatever you like.

Kocur_
11-08-2005, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
There is your 20MM cannon, called the stinger. It was a fixed gun fired by the pilot. The nose gun was always a light mg based on MG34.

http://misheli.image.pbase.com/u11/ouroboris/upload/2418663.Heinkel111stingertailgun.jpg

You is wrong, be sure.

http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/He111.html

Never had a cannon nose gun, the greenhouse structure couldn't support that kind of hammering. The cockpit gun 3D model is an MG-15 light machine gun evolved from the MG34.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/heer/infantry/mg34/mg34.html

The object viewer be wrong, you is wrong, be sure. A few were fitted with forward 20MM, but they were braced to fire fixed inside the lower gondola.

So I will throw out all my books. They are all wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

MG FF/M's recoil with its rather weak ammo and principle of action, i.e. API blowback was medicore.

So to make things clear: early He-111 had 7,92mg, but later ones did have MG FF/M in the nose.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9264/he111mgffm3yr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

BfHeFwMe
11-08-2005, 12:44 PM
And clearly that is not the gun we have in game.

JtD
11-08-2005, 12:54 PM
And which game are you playing?

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/henosecannon.jpg

luftluuver
11-08-2005, 01:19 PM
The modeling is incorrect for the MG/FF installation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

BfHeFwMe
11-08-2005, 01:28 PM
I'm playing the one that doesn't have a FF model in the nose.

http://www.makettinfo.hu/anyagok/referencia/historia/kep_685.jpg

Here's one mounted in the forward gondola. No way are you going to swing an FF around with that kind of weight or ammo canister.

http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/pics-waffen/MG-FF.jpg

JtD
11-08-2005, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The modeling is incorrect for the MG/FF installation.

It looks better from the inside. You can easily see the square plate there.

Kocur_
11-08-2005, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
I'm playing the one that doesn't have a FF model in the nose.

http://www.makettinfo.hu/anyagok/referencia/historia/kep_685.jpg

Here's one mounted in the forward gondola. No way are you going to swing an FF around with that kind of weight or ammo canister.

http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/pics-waffen/MG-FF.jpg

Wouldnt it be easier to just say you made a mistake saying there were no MG FF/Ms in He-111 noses, which btw is human and happens to all of us...

PS.
What I see is a connon mounted nowhere, just laying. The drum magazine looks like the bigger one, i.e. 90rds used later in Fw190s.
MG FF/M with 55rds weight would be about 40kg.

Gibbage1
11-08-2005, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Wouldnt it be easier to just say you made a mistake saying there were no MG FF/Ms in He-111 noses, which btw is human and happens to all of us...


Some people simply can NOT admit when they are wrong. Just like in my sig, Kurf still denies the B-35 flew or even existed. Truly sad. Its apperant in the game your firing a cannon in the nose gun by its low rate of fire, tracers, and large explosions from the HE rounds going off.

Hoarmurath
11-08-2005, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I did a little more testing. Enough to actually call it a test. Again I used the 20mm MG/FF cannon in the Heinkels nose to fire at certain spots on the P-38.

Considering the different effects of the projectiles and the graphical representation with Arcade=1 I think the nose cannon contains MG shells - about every third seems to be one. From now on I'll label it MG shell no matter what it really is.

I managed to shoot the entire tail assembly off with one hit by the MG shell. All you need to do is to hit the horizontal stab (the part the elevator is attached to) and everything breaks off. So listen up: It is not the booms failing that cause the effect.

While I think it is accurate that the stab is completely severed by just one MG shell, it imho does not neccessarily mean the aircraft is doomed. With the binary options this software has it does not seem wise to me to give the P-38 such a critical one hit=kill spot.

However, the only reason this problem becomes so obvious is that the P-38 is an incredibly tough aircraft in every other way. Using HE shells (no MG) it is totally possible to invest about 30 hits into the tail structure alone without causing critical failure.

This toughness combined with the weak spot will lead exactly to the impression our virtual P-38 pilots noted in this topic - 'it's always my tail coming off'.

Interesting. I wonder what make you think that the loss of the horizontal stabiliser isn't enough to doom the plane? I haven't seen any pic showing a P-38 making it back without this piece of equipment so far...

JtD
11-09-2005, 03:33 AM
I didn't mean that the entire stab was gone, but cut in half or so. This way the elevator itself could take most of the stress created by the momentum resulting from induced vertical loads. Some of the forces would lead to a torsion in the booms (which could make them break off the way they do under high stress, but not on a static aircraft or one flying straight & level).

Hoarmurath
11-09-2005, 04:18 AM
Cut in half, the sheer weight of the part of stab should be enough to twist the booms, even without considering the influence of the airflow even flying level. Even on a static aircraft, it should be enough to start twisting them.

Professor_06
11-09-2005, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Cut in half, the sheer weight of the part of stab should be enough to twist the booms, even without considering the influence of the airflow even flying level. Even on a static aircraft, it should be enough to start twisting them.

Very amusing. Very creative imagination. One red star for creative writing!

TAGERT.
11-09-2005, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
Very amusing. Very creative imagination. One red star for creative writing! Agreed 100%
What sold me was all his suporting pictures and his mechanical engineering stress equations that support his *theory*.. NOT! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
11-09-2005, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Cut in half, the sheer weight of the part of stab should be enough to twist the booms, even without considering the influence of the airflow even flying level. Even on a static aircraft, it should be enough to start twisting them.

I disagree with that for two reasons:

1) The elevator itself will bear the main portion of the stress.

2) From drawings (some of which have been posted in this topic so check some pages up) the structure of the stab seems to be too lightweight and the booms to strong to get twisted off by the stab weight only. This of course depends a lot on the position of the cut. Gibbage posted this picture on page 1:

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p38dm/Picture28.jpg

It is a little inconclusive but interesting nonetheless. It obviously shows that with the stab & elevator beeing cut off at an extreme end a strong momentum is applied, and the opposite boom is being twisted. Also, the elevator/stab construction itself is falling of the plane - the attachment to the boom seems very loose. However, it is hard to say how much of the twist is caused by the cut off stab and how much from other damage effects - after all this plane is a wreck.

Loki-PF
11-09-2005, 11:59 AM
What's THIS!?!?!

Hoarmurath arguing to nerf a P-38!?!?

Inconceivable!



.

Hoarmurath
11-09-2005, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Loki-PF:
What's THIS!?!?!

Hoarmurath arguing to nerf a P-38!?!?

Inconceivable!



.

Nerf? what nerf? i am, as usual, defending the sim against self apointed experts of dubious origin...

Loki-PF
11-09-2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Nerf? what nerf? i am, as usual, defending the sim against self apointed experts of dubious origin...

You must be looking in the mirror?