PDA

View Full Version : IL2 damage model / durability and dive speed



XyZspineZyX
11-04-2003, 06:07 PM
Oleg, I have some interogation about the IL2 damage model, durability and dive speed.

I'll start with the dive speed, I tested almost all models of IL2's from series 1 to the 3M and I have results of dive speed where I do not comprehend. In all the test, I used the QMB , started at 5000 meter over Smolensk map, clear weather at noon.

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

The 1941 series 1 is the one that can substain the most speed in a dive : over 740 kph

From the aircraft description :

Advantages: Unique attack aircraft of the Second World war possessing excellent performance. Strong armor and fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Simple and easy to grasp the controls.

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

The 1941 series 3 can widthstand : 700 kph


Advantages: High flight performance. Strong armor and increased fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Simple controls.

Disadvantages: No rear hemisphere protection. Oil radiator vulnerability.


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

The 1942 2M first series can widhhstand : 660 kph

Advantages: High flight performance. Strong armor and fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Virtual full aircraft protection. Simple and easily understood controls.


Disadvantages: Reduction of aircraft speed. Oil radiator vulnerability.
---------------------------------------------

The 1942 2M late series can widthstand : 600 kph


High flight performance. Strong armor and fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Virtual full aircraft protection. Simple and easily understood controls.

Disadvantages: Reduction of aircraft diving speed and maneuverability. Reduced flight performance. Short-lived construction of mixed metal/wooden wing type. Oil radiator vulnerability.


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

The type 3 1943 can widthstand : 580 kph

Thanks to the increased output of high-quality aluminum, the Il-2 retrieved its all-metal wings.

Advantages: High flight performance. Strong armor and fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Virtual full aircraft protection. Simple and easily understood controls.

Disadvantages: Oil radiator vulnerability.



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

The 3M 1943 can widhstand : 640 kph

Advantages: High flight performance. Strong armor and fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Virtual full aircraft protection. Simple controls.

Disadvantages: Absence of muzzle brakes in the guns leading to strong recoil at firing and difficulties related to conducting aimed fire at pin-point targets with long fire bursts. Lower bomb load. Oil radiator vulnerability.

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

What I do not comprehend is the 1943 models, they got their all metal wings and surface controls, better construction, better emgineered and yet the type 3 is the one that looses part the earliest. The 3M has better figures. I thought that the IL2 got better in terms of construction compared to earlier models ?

Another note, can you check why we constantly looses surface controls from any type of small caliber projectile ? What I don't comprehend is sometimes, we get flak from distance, look at the aircraft damage from external, to see little black scratch on the surface of lets say the fuselage, and we constantly loose surface controls, most of the time it will be elevators, often the rudder, and to a lesser extent ailerons.

May I ask what we're loosing actually ? The cables or a jam surface control ?

I believed the IL2 was the most sturdiess plane of all of the VVS, since it was prone to flak hit and so on. As it is now in FB, the IL2 is no near what its legendary sturdiness was back then.

Thanks for reading

Eric - DR Hangar

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2003, 06:07 PM
Oleg, I have some interogation about the IL2 damage model, durability and dive speed.

I'll start with the dive speed, I tested almost all models of IL2's from series 1 to the 3M and I have results of dive speed where I do not comprehend. In all the test, I used the QMB , started at 5000 meter over Smolensk map, clear weather at noon.

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

The 1941 series 1 is the one that can substain the most speed in a dive : over 740 kph

From the aircraft description :

Advantages: Unique attack aircraft of the Second World war possessing excellent performance. Strong armor and fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Simple and easy to grasp the controls.

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

The 1941 series 3 can widthstand : 700 kph


Advantages: High flight performance. Strong armor and increased fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Simple controls.

Disadvantages: No rear hemisphere protection. Oil radiator vulnerability.


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

The 1942 2M first series can widhhstand : 660 kph

Advantages: High flight performance. Strong armor and fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Virtual full aircraft protection. Simple and easily understood controls.


Disadvantages: Reduction of aircraft speed. Oil radiator vulnerability.
---------------------------------------------

The 1942 2M late series can widthstand : 600 kph


High flight performance. Strong armor and fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Virtual full aircraft protection. Simple and easily understood controls.

Disadvantages: Reduction of aircraft diving speed and maneuverability. Reduced flight performance. Short-lived construction of mixed metal/wooden wing type. Oil radiator vulnerability.


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

The type 3 1943 can widthstand : 580 kph

Thanks to the increased output of high-quality aluminum, the Il-2 retrieved its all-metal wings.

Advantages: High flight performance. Strong armor and fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Virtual full aircraft protection. Simple and easily understood controls.

Disadvantages: Oil radiator vulnerability.



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

The 3M 1943 can widhstand : 640 kph

Advantages: High flight performance. Strong armor and fire power. Increased aircraft durability. Virtual full aircraft protection. Simple controls.

Disadvantages: Absence of muzzle brakes in the guns leading to strong recoil at firing and difficulties related to conducting aimed fire at pin-point targets with long fire bursts. Lower bomb load. Oil radiator vulnerability.

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

What I do not comprehend is the 1943 models, they got their all metal wings and surface controls, better construction, better emgineered and yet the type 3 is the one that looses part the earliest. The 3M has better figures. I thought that the IL2 got better in terms of construction compared to earlier models ?

Another note, can you check why we constantly looses surface controls from any type of small caliber projectile ? What I don't comprehend is sometimes, we get flak from distance, look at the aircraft damage from external, to see little black scratch on the surface of lets say the fuselage, and we constantly loose surface controls, most of the time it will be elevators, often the rudder, and to a lesser extent ailerons.

May I ask what we're loosing actually ? The cables or a jam surface control ?

I believed the IL2 was the most sturdiess plane of all of the VVS, since it was prone to flak hit and so on. As it is now in FB, the IL2 is no near what its legendary sturdiness was back then.

Thanks for reading

Eric - DR Hangar

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 03:09 AM
Interesting read.

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_potter_anim.gif (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 08:37 AM
Aha! Yes interesting. I guess that's why my nose wanders all over the place when using the 3M to strafe.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 08:50 AM
Your test is almost right, excpet that it is IAS. TAS is greater.

Need to say that in dive for Il-2 plane we model the quality of surfaces attached to the wing structure. It was known for Il-2 that it was not so great diver due to problems with surface of the wing. It may be very durable for the flak, but from aerodynamical point of view and damage due to aerodynamical flow with great speed it is not the same as durabiltuy for the flak damage.

In the next sim we will model such process by more right way. Let say that we will miss the cowls of engine sometime, sometime the cover of the wing surface. That willbe more correct and more close to real things than now.

Technology of Il-2 sim engine doesn't allow us to make such precise things in dive damage due to high G-load with recover and super fast aerodynamics flow that damage surfaces, etc... With Il-2 engine we model just part of the whole process in such situation.



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games