PDA

View Full Version : Fw 190 has self-sealing fuel tanks in FB/PF?



Kwiatos
02-03-2005, 01:22 PM
In RL Fw 190 had self-sealing fuel tanks. In FB/PF i dont see that it works. Always after fuel leak in Fw190 my fuel gone in maximum 2 mintes even with full tanks. In othere planes like Bf 109 or amercian planes self-sealing fuel tanks works good but not in Fw190. Even Yaks, La, Laggs flying much longer than Fw190 with fuel leak. Something is definitly wrong. I wrote about these problem some time ago and saw that others found the same. But after patches problem still exist.

Kwiatos
02-03-2005, 01:22 PM
In RL Fw 190 had self-sealing fuel tanks. In FB/PF i dont see that it works. Always after fuel leak in Fw190 my fuel gone in maximum 2 mintes even with full tanks. In othere planes like Bf 109 or amercian planes self-sealing fuel tanks works good but not in Fw190. Even Yaks, La, Laggs flying much longer than Fw190 with fuel leak. Something is definitly wrong. I wrote about these problem some time ago and saw that others found the same. But after patches problem still exist.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-03-2005, 01:44 PM
Hi,

Yep - this problem is a pet annoyance of mine which has survived a lot longer than it should have considering the number of patches for which it has remained 'unaddressed'. In fact, this is probably the main reason why I saw the fixes in 3.04 as a ridiculous 'priority inversion.'

Cheers,
Norris

Fehler
02-03-2005, 02:38 PM
Come on guys!

Dont you know the FW-190 had fuel tanks in every sqare inch of the plane. That's why whenever you are hit, you get a fuel leak.. even in the rudder!

And didnt you know that although these fuel tanks had sides, the FW-190 one(s) only had bottom sides?!? That's why if you are hit in the top of the tank, the fuel will continue to leak forever.

And didnt you know German fuel was much thinner than all other forms of gasoline? That's why a small hit will leak much faster than any other plane with the same size tank.

You guys are obviously not WWII enthusiasts! Why, Kurt Tank himself made these fuel tanks by hand and developed them to leak worse than a cloth baby diaper. It's clearly written in all WWII Flight books.

Sheesh...


Oh, one more thing. Even if you get this fuel leak and land safely on your own runway the enemy will get a credit for a kill. This is obviously because you could never change out a FW-190 fuel tank, therefore the plane hit in one, was beyond all repair and was lost forever...

How about a little fix on these two issues, Oleg? They have been complained about for quite some time and gotten NO attantion. You can watch a P-39's fuel vent for hours without the plane needing to land, but a small blip just about anywhere on a 190 and say bye bye to your fuel.

widgeon
02-03-2005, 03:55 PM
Yes,
Makes it tough in a fight when all of a sudden your engine sputters to a halt, and its only been a minute or two after getting hit.

Widgeon

HayateAce
02-03-2005, 06:36 PM
Same fuel problem in the Yak3 and Corsair. Let's fix all these planes right now.....

JG7_Rall
02-03-2005, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Yep - this problem is a pet annoyance of mine which has survived a lot longer than it should have considering the number of patches for which it has remained 'unaddressed'. In fact, this is probably the main reason why I saw the fixes in 3.04 as a ridiculous 'priority inversion.'

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awesome sig.

BBB_Hyperion
02-03-2005, 07:16 PM
20 mm hits cant be sealed. lower calibers hit can.

Intresting in this issue is the time the fuel needs to drain out and its always all fuel like you dont have several tanks and the bullet hits always tank bottom . Not top .)

KGr.HH-Sunburst
02-03-2005, 07:37 PM
i wasnt surprised that this wasnt fixed at all, the FW series always had the most problems and the least attention by the devs somehow

the problem is that it makes the FW a very weak plane and easy to nock out of the fight for good
you just cant take any hits even from the smallest caliber guns.
getting hit in a FW and its end of the fight very soon

combine that with a pair of bubble gum shooting 20mm's and a cr@py forward view and you got yourself a frustration
atleast the FW without mk108s

gimme me a break, who said the FW was durable and rugged? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

p1ngu666
02-03-2005, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Same fuel problem in the Yak3 and Corsair. Let's fix all these planes right now..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

happens on most planes actully, u get a *bad* fuel leak and ull leak all your fuel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

even on b25, which would have had a fuel transfer and management stuff, nope, 1 bad leak and its just a matter of time......

how many fuel tanks does a 190 have anyways?

jurinko
02-04-2005, 02:36 AM
Fw 190 got one fuel tank under the pilot. Please Oleg have a look at this. Even few hits from Brownings can drain the fuel out very guickly.

OldMan____
02-04-2005, 03:01 AM
Just let's not be so agressive, Oleg does not deserve and probably does not pay attention to agressive comments.


Can anyone calculate how many liters per minute flow in a hole made by a .303 gun? Sure someone can find out this size and all values. So let's make calculations and send them to Oleg.

Peace

Fehler
02-04-2005, 03:13 AM
One fuel tank on the Antons, behind and below the pilot's seat.

But in the game, hits on the wings will cause fuel leaks.

The Ta-152 was the only FW family fighter to include fuel cells in the wing roots, giving it much better endurance.

I have litterally watched rounds hitting my wings and received the "Fuel leak" message. That's why I joke about there being fuel tanks in every part of the plane, including the tires and the rudder.

Something is amiss with the FW DM when it comes to fuel leaks. Has been that way for a long time now, and probably the most frustrating thing about the plane.

Fehler
02-04-2005, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just let's not be so agressive, Oleg does not deserve and probably does not pay attention to agressive comments.


Can anyone calculate how many liters per minute flow in a hole made by a .303 gun? Sure someone can find out this size and all values. So let's make calculations and send them to Oleg.

Peace <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A calculation like that would be much too subjective.

Where is the hole?

Did it puncture clean or tear?

Is the plane at high or low altitude? (Different pressure would cause different results)


Instead, just take a plane of similar fuel capacity and see if it drains as fast as a 190. That would be a more objective test. I know this game is complex, but it cant possibly be complex enough to calculate 50 different variables concerning fuel leaks. I dont know if it's a global equasion (X number of gallons of fuel leak at X amount of time) -OR- it is plane specific. (X plane leaks at y gallons per minute, Z plane leaks at W gallons per minute) Only 1C knows which is correct. But either way, DM's are one of the most subjective equasions in the game. I never hear people complain about rapid loss of fuel from any other plane except the post that Hayate made earlier.

I personally find it funny that no matter where I get hit, I lose fuel! Something is still a bit odd about the Butcher bird's DM, and anyone that flys the plane can tell you the same thing.

X_Ray_B-S
02-04-2005, 03:51 AM
Hi,

the Focke Wulf Anton has got 2 feul tanks under the Pilot sit.
http://www.focke-wulf190.com/images/laengsschnitt.jpg

"Die 190 hatte 2 Tanks im Mittelrumpf, der vordere war ein 240 l und der hintere ein 300 l Tank. Die Tanks bestanden aus Kotonit und waren beschusssicher. Der Kraftstofffluss wurde nach folgendem Prinzip geregelt, eine Maihak Pumpe entnahm gleichzeitig Kraftstoff aus dem vorderen und hinteren Beh├┬Ąlter und zwar mehr als der Motor ben├┬Âtigte. Der restliche Kraftstoff fliest wieder zur├╝ck und schlie├čt damit das R├╝ckschlagventil des vorderen Tanks. Das bewirkt, dass zuerst der hintere Tank leergeflogen wird und dann der vordere. "

"The 190 has got 2 tanks in the fuselage, the front one was a 240l and the rear one a 300l tank. The tanks consisted of Kotonit and were bullet-proof. The fuelflow was regulated according to the following principle, a Maihak pump took at the same time fuel out of the front and rear tank, more than the engine needed. The remaining fuel flow again back and closes thereby the check valve of the front tank. It causes that first the rear tank is empty-flown and then the front."

Sry for my poor english. I hope you can understand what that german articel says.

Btw: if one tank is hited, then the other one still should work for awhile.

@OldMan: a normal tap has a fuelflow of 8-12l/min at a pressure of 1 bar. Now you can compare it with the lose of fuel in a Focke: 540l in 2-3min.

cu
X-Ray

JG54_Arnie
02-04-2005, 04:21 AM
There's a difference between small fuelleak and the "fuelburn". Small fuelleaks that show up as normal fuelleaks selfseal soon enough, but the problem is the fuelburn, where you see brown smoke coming out of the back of the FW. This one drains fuel within a few minutes. Main problem is that this fuelburn happens way too easily. And often requires only a small hit to be set off. Emailed Oleg some time ago about it and he said he would check it out.

jurinko
02-04-2005, 04:26 AM
can anyone do screenshots in arcade mode, showing whether wing hits really cause the fuel leak and if small cal guns cause complet exhaustion of fuel without the self-sealing effect?

Fehler
02-04-2005, 04:32 AM
Very nice schematic. Where is it from?

The one I have is at a more oblique angle and it looks like there is only one tank. The reference material says "Fuel Tank" not tank(s), but I do not doubt your material. (I have found other inconsistancies in mine.

But there were clearly no fuel tanks in the wings until the Ta's.

I still dont understand how the game calculates the loss of fuel, and really until a developer makes a statement on how this is done in the game, it's a moot point. Is the game sophisticated enough to take into consideration the angle of the hit? I have my doubts because damage is calculated with hit boxes.

I know your literature says they were "Bulletproof" but nothing is truly bulletproof. So how much armor surrounded the tanks? What caliber round was necessary to penetrate it? I suppose questions like this would have to be answered before any evidence could be presented to 1C for consideration, but again, all of this is based on a complex formula with many variables. I am sure some compromises are in place due to CPU cycles.

It would be nice to get some sort of answer from 1C about this.

BBB_Hyperion
02-04-2005, 05:00 AM
The later Planes from A8 on had a 115 liter extra tank behind the pilot seat.

Here is the fueltank situation for d9 and early ta
h0 c0 series.
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fuel.jpg

Question 1
How is the damage on fuel tanks simulated or is just 1 tank simulated.

Question 2
Does it make a difference where it is hit ?

Question 3
Why is the fueltank that fast empty.

X_Ray_B-S
02-04-2005, 05:13 AM
Hi:

source for the picture: http://www.focke-wulf190.de/

Perhaps there is a better translation for "beschusssicher" then bulletproof (but i dont know it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. I tryed to translat it for the non german speaker.)

"Besschusssicher" in that case doesnt mean, a bullet canÔ┬┤t penetrat the tanks. It descripe more the self sealing effekt when the tank was hited.

cu
X-Ray

p1ngu666
02-04-2005, 05:38 AM
u guys need to look at the bigger picture http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

if fw190 has only 1 tank (early?) then if it gets holed well thats it...

if it has 2 tanks, and a shutoff system, then ok 1 tank drains but still have other tank...

its a far more rediculous problem when in a plane with multiple tanks, b25,zero,val etc u will leak all your fuel away, while anyone with half a braincell would shut off leaking tank so entire plane doesnt run out of fuel...

yes i know zero, and maybe val didnt have self seal, but its a fuel management issue http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

msalama
02-06-2005, 03:53 AM
Well at least the latest AEP seems to work OK! An AI Bf110G-2 punctured my Yak-3's fuel tank this morning w/ his tail gun, but the leak was sealed off after 2 minutes or so.

So no probs here, and I got my revenge too - wasted the bugger just after the incident... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

S.taibanzai
02-06-2005, 04:51 AM
Its not about the Yak

we now already that vss planes get special treathments )))

i agree to that the feul bug on the Fw190 is very anoying not to mention real ))lol

can you imangine flying cap in fw 190 over dutch or french coast then some alies planes come's shoot at the fw 190 flashh feul leak !!

fw 190 pilot bail out he nows in 1 or 2 min no more feul ,

alies pilot say's i got him feul leak let the fw 190 run he wont make it to base thats like 10 min away from the incident

boy that would make manny alies pilot's happy dont you think ?

they wont cal it the butcher bird,rater the drain feul bird ,


in pilots manual would say :if you see a fw 190 shoot him in belly, one hit = feulleak = kill for pilot

msalama
02-06-2005, 04:52 AM
Yep, the self-sealing fuel tank(s) of the latest AEP Yak-3 are OK. No doubt about it.

I was able to re-create the abovementioned situation, this time against a Ju-88A-4. He punctured my fuel tank with his tail gun & the leak was again sealed shortly after. I then maimed him, forcing him to crash-land & explode soon afterwards.

So no probs with the wee Yakker at least - works just as expected, actually...

msalama
02-06-2005, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
Its not about the Yak <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, didn't notice yer post 1stly. Sorry 'bout that.

Yeah, dunno 'bout the FW - what U say might / mightn't be true. Some evidence, though, would be nice, instead of just statements?

Matz0r
02-06-2005, 05:37 AM
Tested A8 fuel leak and found no evidence of fuel tank leaks being caused by wing hits or other areas that's not the fuel tank. Small caliber hits will seal for .303, 7.92 and even .50 cals. 7.6mm Shkas will cause fatal fuel tank leak with rapid fuel loss as with large caliber rounds such as 20mm.

EJGr.Ost_chamel
02-06-2005, 06:47 AM
When reading this post, i remembered the following scheme of 190 tank system.
The source is: P. Rodeike, Focke-Wulf Jagdflugzeug - FW 190A, FW 190 "Dora", Ta 152H, Struve-Druck, Eutin, 1998, p.207
Don't know, if this is helpful for the discussion - just wanted to share it with you.

http://home.arcor.de/holger.eberhardt/190_tankanlage.jpg

Greetings
Chamel

p1ngu666
02-06-2005, 07:01 AM
white or very light grey leaks will seal most of the time

grey ones, with a "cloud" or blob of smoke in the hit area, those ones dont and will drain all fuel for all planes i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

planes normaly have 2 or more tanks to protect against leaks and other problems, even if one is only small.

allied pilots shot at bottom of 190 to ignite its fuel tank http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lbhskier37
02-06-2005, 08:37 AM
but regardless of whether a big leak should seal or not, there is not way it should be able to drain 450L in 2 minutes. Someone should do the math on that, it doesn't seem likely though.

msalama
02-06-2005, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Someone should do the math on that, it doesn't seem likely though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a loss of 3.75l/sec. Hmmm... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Now who remembers their eng. math better than I do, i.e. how big a hole is needed for such a loss / second? And what about the possible pressure difference between the tank & the outside athmosphere...?

JG5_UnKle
02-06-2005, 10:30 AM
Yep definite bug IMHO - the 190 suffers from it a lot.

If it is an engine hit or a fuel-line damaged then maybe that's different - but the rate fuel leaks is a bit silly

BBB_Hyperion
02-06-2005, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
When reading this post, i remembered the following scheme of 190 tank system.
The source is: P. Rodeike, Focke-Wulf Jagdflugzeug - FW 190A, FW 190 "Dora", Ta 152H, Struve-Druck, Eutin, 1998, p.207
Don't know, if this is helpful for the discussion - just wanted to share it with you.

Greetings
Chamel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well something is not on the diagram. IIRC the Fuelpump gets more fuel from both tanks at once than needed for engine operation. The not used fuel gets pushed back duo overpressure over the R├╝ckschlagventil into fueltank 1. If that is full it gets into fueltank 2 . When the droptank is empty both internal tanks have 100 % fuel.

As we see on the drawing there are fuel pump switches ( i think in the fuse box) but do they interupt the fuel backflow in the damaged tank too ?

msalama
02-07-2005, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Small caliber hits will seal for .303, 7.92 and even .50 cals. 7.6mm Shkas will cause fatal fuel tank leak with rapid fuel loss as with large caliber rounds such as 20mm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also F-16_Matz, die Focke-Wolferinnen ist in ordnung da? Which BTW would be as I expected truth be telt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And I'm not even sure that this abovementioned loss rate of 3.75l/sec is too high a value, now that I think about it. It's about 7ish pints per second, and if yer fuel tank is like Swiss cheese... not impossible at all I think...

Hmmmmmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Jaws2002
02-07-2005, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Someone should do the math on that, it doesn't seem likely though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a loss of 3.75l/sec. Hmmm... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Now who remembers their eng. math better than I do, i.e. how big a hole is needed for such a loss / second? And what about the possible pressure difference between the tank & the outside athmosphere...? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think is way less then that. How many people fly Fw with 100% fuel? Do you? I fly mostly FW, and I usually take half tank, unless is a big map when i load 3/4. You'll be surprized to see how many guys fly with 25%, fuel get into a fight after 10 minutes of full power, and cry about the tank being drained. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.
The fuel tanks on the FW are not particularly well protected. are ok from behind but not from below or sides.
I am frustrated too when I loose all fuel do to battle damage, but is not fair to say that you lose all fuel after one mg hit. I watch the fuel leaks closely all the time. Two days ago I got fuel leak twice in one sortie, first a yak 3P second a p-47. The tanks sealed both times and I made it home with no problem.
All planes leak fuel, some more then other. Is not a FW-190 issue.
Honestly, some of you guys should try other planes too once in a while to open your eyes to reallity.

JG54_Arnie
02-07-2005, 10:10 AM
Hmm, it is a FW problem for sure, I always take 75% and it drains in 3 or 4 minutes when this major fuelleak (fuelburn) occurs. And it doesn't need more than a minor hit to be set off. One hit from a .50 from 400 meters away can still cause this.

And I also fly different planes, never have experienced this same thing in another plane yet. Never fly yaks really, seems to have the same problem?

msalama
02-07-2005, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaws2002: I think is way less than that. How many people fly Fw with 100% fuel? Do you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awful hard to say, since I don't fly FW at all. I'm a Yak punter, y'see.

My point - which you seemingly managed to miss in its entirety - was that yes, it _might_ be way less than that in reality, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's not a FW-190 issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, my point exactly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Honestly, some of you guys should try other planes too once in a while to open your eyes to reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And _I'm_ the guy you answered to, having tried the Dora twice in IL-2? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

msalama
02-07-2005, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Never fly yaks really, seems to have the same problem? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope! Read my previous posts in this thread...

Freakbrother
02-08-2005, 08:45 AM
Typical situation in an A-8, bullets from Il-4 reargunners penetrades the engine and pilot and causes also a tankleck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://img237.exs.cx/img237/2028/tankleck9lr.jpg

p1ngu666
02-08-2005, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Someone should do the math on that, it doesn't seem likely though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a loss of 3.75l/sec. Hmmm... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Now who remembers their eng. math better than I do, i.e. how big a hole is needed for such a loss / second? And what about the possible pressure difference between the tank & the outside athmosphere...? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think is way less then that. How many people fly Fw with 100% fuel? Do you? I fly mostly FW, and I usually take half tank, unless is a big map when i load 3/4. You'll be surprized to see how many guys fly with 25%, fuel get into a fight after 10 minutes of full power, and cry about the tank being drained. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.
The fuel tanks on the FW are not particularly well protected. are ok from behind but not from below or sides.
I am frustrated too when I loose all fuel do to battle damage, but is not fair to say that you lose all fuel after one mg hit. I watch the fuel leaks closely all the time. Two days ago I got fuel leak twice in one sortie, first a yak 3P second a p-47. The tanks sealed both times and I made it home with no problem.
All planes leak fuel, some more then other. Is not a FW-190 issue.
Honestly, some of you guys should try other planes too once in a while to open your eyes to reallity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes i ran out of fuel in a20 last night, 1 bad fuel leak in 1 wingtank ( the far one i guess)

oh and the boost system on 190 uses 14litres of fuel a minute or in 5 minutes? think u could fly 40-5mins full power then u run out of fuel.. even with drop tank

im sure a 190 flier will know for sure.

we should ask for bad fuel leak to stop once hit tank is emputy for *All* planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
02-08-2005, 09:19 AM
I once saw on a TV show (a very long time ago) that FW190 pilots would dive away from bomber formations with the fuel tank "exposed" to the gunfire because it was well protected and better armored than the glass canopy protecting the pilot.

So with that in mind, you'd think that the FW190s fuel tank would be not something easily done for.

Also, I notice that you can puncture these tanks from high six angles. Easily. Its very odd.

BBB_Hyperion
02-08-2005, 09:27 AM
Fuel value still 288 on A Aeries only plane with 500 l fuel is F8 check yourself with devicelink.

Thats all a little questionable. As at first fuel tank 232 + 292 = 524 l and weight is 232 l = 182 kg 292 l = 228 kg .

Was this issue solved by Oleg ?

msalama
02-08-2005, 10:15 AM
Gentlemen, please.

Now it _could_ be that Mr. Maddox has made a mistake with the FW, or then again _maybe_not_. Still, I for one haven't seen ANY hard evidence yet to prove - or disprove, come to that - anything, only subjective speculation.

But when it comes to the supposedly missing self-sealing capabilities of the tanks of some aircraft, which was one of the subjects touched upon earlier, I can only offer this: my Yak-3's self-sealing tanks at least work just as expected, i.e. small punctures do get sealed, big ones don't.

Now, I'm perfectly happy with that, until someone PROVES this - or whatever - aircraft behaviour to be incorrect. Until then I can only take all this whining only for what it sounds like.

And about the maximum PERCEIVED fuel loss rate of a punctured tank, regardless of aircraft type: it _could_very_well_ be excessive, too, or then again _maybe_not_. No-one has come up with any calculations yet to back up their claims about it. And until and/or before they do, this is all just worthless chitchat and nothing more.

I'm not saying things are perfect, or that complaining about them is verboten. Heck no. But some evidence to back up one's claims would still be nice, regardless of the viewpoint one has about the matter in question.

Thank you.

Matz0r
02-08-2005, 04:52 PM
Ok, lets try this...

This is a devicelink recording of Bf109G6 and Fw190A6 loosing fuel to a "big" fuel leak, caused by .50 cal hit.

http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/fw-vs-bf-fuel-leak.png

I don't know what units the fuel is measured in from the device link but what's interesting is that the G6 starts with more fuel than the Fw190, start 100% fuel readings:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">Fw190A6: 287.89
Bf109G6: 299.14
P51D-20NA: 599.60
</pre>

Interesting...

p1ngu666
02-08-2005, 06:52 PM
interesting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

did u do that while flying? im curious as to how u did it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

the problem isnt draining fuel tank, its draining fuel tanks. it gets more rediclous the longer the range of the plane, and number of tanks.

on lancaster, and i presume other bombers, they would transfer fuel around so they never had a emputy tank, so if 1 got holed then it wasnt terminal (if your full tank got hit, u outa luck, if your emputy one got hit u ok)

190 perhaps isnt so strange with the actual fuel leak, but the regularity of it and easyness.

icefire, perspex canopy and ur head, vs metal, and various bits and bobs under your ***

BBB_Hyperion
02-09-2005, 01:36 AM
Matz be sure to test 190 F8 and add to diagram too if that is not obvious i dont know .)

msalama
02-09-2005, 02:43 AM
Matz,

Would you please be so kind as to test an assortment of _both_ Allied and Axis planes? If that's not too tedious a task, I mean.

Seems to me that this is the only way to put this matter to rest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Now, if we only knew the measurement units used in the graph... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

But at least we might be able to see if there's any resemblance of consistency between models (all relevant factors hopefully being equal - or close - in the individual measurements of course...)

AnaK774
02-09-2005, 03:39 AM
Also 1 thing that is quite interesting is overall plane endurance times...

any volunteers to chk em out as well?

p1ngu666
02-09-2005, 07:12 AM
the endurance depends on what power settings are being used

at full power, they should really guzzle the fuel up

Matz0r
02-09-2005, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>did u do that while flying? im curious as to how u did it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A perl hack that poll the data from the internal devicelink port _while flying_. Fed the data to a gnuplot script that saves the graph as png. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll add some more aircrafts tonight.

p1ngu666
02-09-2005, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>did u do that while flying? im curious as to how u did it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A perl hack that poll the data from the internal devicelink port _while flying_. Fed the data to a gnuplot script that saves the graph as png. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll add some more aircrafts tonight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

could u try a a20,b25,beufighter, any of those, all carry lots of fuel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

p1ngu666
02-09-2005, 09:30 AM
oh, and me163 at the other end of range http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Matz0r
02-09-2005, 12:59 PM
I've had big difficulties reproducing the same kind of critical leaks for some plane types, I've tried P-47D22, P51D-5NT, Spitfire MkIxe/c, Yak9d 5 times or more without any luck. The aircraft will just be beyond flyability before non-sealing fuel tank damage has occured. I'll keep on trying for these types but it's very time consuming http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/fighters.png

Also tried the Bf110 and A20G. The A20 seem to have only one fuel tank also, the damage in this graph was made to port wing outside the engine and it drained all of the fuel. Bf110 was difficult to damage enough without catching fire, which can be seen as the last drop in the Bf110 curve - fuel tank catching fire. Before that the loss rates seem to be equal.

http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/fbomb.png

msalama
02-09-2005, 01:16 PM
1st of all: a huge thanks, Matz.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've had big difficulties reproducing the same kind of critical leaks for some plane types <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Accchh yes, that can be a problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif So what's your opinion - can you compare the curves to each other as they are? Or failing that, can you think of a way to do uniform damage all around?

Anyway, this is very interesting. Thanks again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'll keep on trying for these types but it's very time consuming <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

C'mon man, you don't get paid to do this(?) so don't stress it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif However I'm personally all ears if you decide to carry on with this investigation of yours...

S! S! S! to Matz, I say.

BBB_Hyperion
02-09-2005, 03:20 PM
So now where is the smart guy that tells me why the 190 F8 has 500 l and the 190 A6 has 288 l with the same tanks on 190 Series for A and F ?

Fehler
02-09-2005, 04:04 PM
So, if I am reading this graph correctly, The P-39 looses fuel slower than any German plane? Same with the Yak 9D and Spit? Hmm, as I said earlier.. German fuel was much thinner.. LOL

msalama
02-10-2005, 01:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hmm, as I said earlier.. German fuel was much thinner.. LOL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A quote from Matz: "I've had big difficulties reproducing the same kind of critical leaks for some plane types." I hope this answers your concerns at this point?

msalama
02-10-2005, 01:29 AM
BBB_Hyperion: a valid point there...

NVP1
02-10-2005, 02:59 AM
IIRC
525 liters total in 2 fouselage tanks in Antons;
+115 additional fuel tank starting with A-8

Fehler
02-10-2005, 03:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hmm, as I said earlier.. German fuel was much thinner.. LOL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A quote from Matz: "I've had big difficulties reproducing the same kind of critical leaks for some plane types." I hope this answers your concerns at this point? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(To finish the sentence) ", I've tried P-47D22, P51D-5NT, Spitfire MkIxe/c, Yak9d 5 times or more without any luck." I hope you understand deductive reasoning. The types he listed are the ones he had difficulty with. The ones on the graph are obviously the ones he has no problems with...

So... It still looks like the allied aircraft leak fuel slower than the axis planes represented on the graph. I hope this answers your concerns at this point.

Now, I am not trying to be a smarta$$ here, but that is the information I am getting from this graph. It is obvious by the lack of separate fuel tanks concerning fuel loss that the "Complex" DM is not as complex as once thought. The fuel tanks are merely hit boxes and when damaged, they leak. When they receive "X" amount of damage, they wont seal, if equipped with self sealing tanks. OK, so why does this matter?

Because until Oleg comes and tells us how much fuel is supposed to be lost at whatever rate the game is programmed at, we will not be able to really know what is (If anything) wrong.

I can only tell you that the P-39 was not noted for it's great endurance, but in the game I can watch fuel dump out of her for a very long time before she has to set down.

If anyone can check the capacity of a P-39 (Russian version) v FW190 A-5 it we can then begin to understand the relationship or ratio of fuel loss in each plane type caused by fuel tank damage. Also, the P-39 had a great deal of armor removed as the Russians reworked the plane to make it the sterling performer it was for them. So how much protection was left for the fuel tanks?

Then, of course, Oleg has to let us know if different caliber ammo creates bigger holes in the fuel loss coding as well. So really no test can be very definitive without knowing the unknown parts of the equasion.

I was merely making a joke about thinner fuel, but the graph does make some things look a bit odd. Fuel loss rates in the single engined German planes tested show they leak at the same rate. The graph also shows that multi-engine planes leak at the same rate. But the alarming thing I see is that there appears to be a different fuel loss rate in allied single engined planes than their axis counterparts. Is this by design, by circumstance, or by poor testing criteria?

I dont think there is enough information to make a logical assumption at this point, and as I stated earlier, Oleg holds the key to some of the data.

Again, anyone that flys a FW190 knows that if you have 75% fuel or less and are more than 3k from your base, you get hit you wont get home without dead sticking it. And if you dead stick it, you are considered dead to the other player that shot at you, even if the damage was minimal. These are real issues that face the 190 flyer in the game, right ir wrong, they exist.

msalama
02-10-2005, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The types he listed are the ones he had difficulty with. The ones on the graph are obviously the ones he has no problems with... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, but...

Why oh why is the Yak-9D, for one, _both_ listed AND in the graph at the same time then?

Apart from that, I broadly agree with your points there. And yes - as you yourself said - this thing might never get unambiguously solved, unless Oleg (or someone else in the know) owns up. Because now that you mention it, we indeed seem to be lacking some important _design_ data here too.

Oh well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Let's see what future brings, if anything.

PS. I don't mind wys-ar*es, being one myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

msalama
02-10-2005, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The types he listed are the ones he had difficulty with. The ones on the graph are obviously the ones he has no problems with... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, but...

Why oh why is the Yak-9D, for one, _both_ listed AND in the graph at the same time then?

Apart from that, I broadly agree with your points there. And yes - as you yourself said - this thing might never get unambiguously solved, unless Oleg (or someone else in the know) owns up. Because now that you mention it, we indeed seem to be lacking some important _design_ data too.

Oh well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Let's see what the future brings, if anything.

PS. I don't mind wys-ar*es, being one myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
02-10-2005, 06:47 AM
first of all, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ill photo some cut away's i have for u, then u can see fuel tank locations for planes, just say which u need http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

did u have the boost on, with the f8?

seems its a 45degreeish graph for most planes

Matz0r
02-10-2005, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why oh why is the Yak-9D, for one, _both_ listed AND in the graph at the same time then? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake, Yak9d and SpitIXe shouldn't have been in there - only managed to get sealing leaks on those and sealing leaks loose less than critical ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>did u have the boost on, with the f8? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No boost, all planes are flown at cruise rpm.

Seems like the A models and D model have the same fuel capacity;

Fw-190D-9: 287.90
Fw-190A-4: 287.95

While F and Ta have alot more;

Ta-152H-1: 679.69
Fw-190F-8: 499.88

Definately something wrong here.

Managed to get readings on another couple of aircrafts:

http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/fighters2.png

Seems like the rates vary some but I think the 'higher loss rate' you are experiencing is related to more vulnerable fuel tanks. In the Fw & Bf's I manage to get critical leak each attempt, while other aircraft I can try 5.... 10 times and only get sealing leaks. So in the Fw190 it's alot more common and you suffer more from it.

msalama
02-10-2005, 02:12 PM
Excellent Matz! Now here at long last we've got something concrete - and yep, it does seem that Axis aircraft (including that lonely Jap there) lose fuel more rapidly.

Now what? And what's the real-world data on this - any idea? How about armour thicknesses etc.?

p1ngu666
02-10-2005, 03:29 PM
i think japanease self sealing was said tobe crude, but ive no idea worse it was vs allied stuff.

isnt a self sealing tank made out of rubberish material, that reacts with fuel, or oxygen that grows and hardens, sealing the leak

faustnik
02-10-2005, 03:59 PM
Here's some info from Flying Guns of World War II:

"An advantage on the German side was the better quality of their self-sealing fuel tanks. Tests of British and captured German equipment by the US Navy revealed that the tank installed in the Bf110 was considerably superior to the British self-sealing tanks and gave effective protection against .30 in hits."

"in 1940 the Bureau of Aeronautics ordered the development of a self-sealing fuel tank capable of sealing and resisting 12.7 mm hits. It was quickly discovered that the entrance hole was a minor problem compared to the large exit hole and the hydraulic shock effect, which could easily rupture a tank and even damage the surrounding structure. The first self-sealing tanks were highly primitive, with a layer of rubber attacked to the outside of a metal tank. Such tanks were of rather dubious effectiveness even against .30 hits. But they gradualy evolved into flexible rubber tanks without vulnerable seems or sharp corners, which could absorb shocks. Metal casings produced sparks when hit by bullets, so the tank instead received a flexible non-metallic support that kept it sufficiently far away from the aircraft's skin to reduce the risk of fire. Such a fuel tank was installed in the Grumman F6F Hellcat, and it served very well. Many American aircraft were considered protected against 12.7mm fire and even 20mm hits, and even if the aircraft was damaged beyond repair, it often managed to return home."

p1ngu666
02-10-2005, 07:03 PM
ta mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ZG77_Lignite
02-10-2005, 09:38 PM
Regarding the F8's fuel capacity, (Butch2k has explained it better than I ever could, I know), but the F8 used a different boost system than the A8. Specifically I don't think it used the C3 supercharger injection, thus the tank that normally carried this 'boost' fuel was available to be used by the general fuel system. If memory serves it is 115 liters. I realize it still doesn't equate according to above figures, but that is at least part of an explanation with regards to capacity.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-12-2005, 04:28 AM
Oleg: "There is only one type of code modelling fuel leak in game. Your graphs is wrong. Same piece of code uses advanced cleverness so brilliant that it also models 151/20 and gunpods. They are same also. Close that graph and never open it again."

So, it appears that we have it where LW planes lose fuel more quickly then their allied counterparts. Well, there IS a surprise.

Norris

LeadSpitter_
02-12-2005, 04:35 AM
or maybe fuel leaks the same as others just the fuel tanks are smaller, ever think of that?

that chart shows nothing about how many hits to the fuel tank either.

btw even with selfsealing tanks shouldnt a explosive incideary round cause a fire regaurdeless this is very octane fuel which burns very easy causing secondary explosions, the jet fuel of the korean war had much higher ignition rates from gunfire.

Even hot flak shrapnel was know to ignite self sealing fueltanks on fire and is the reason of so many bombers and fighters were lost by aaa rather then enemy fighters.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-12-2005, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
or maybe fuel leaks the same as others just the fuel tanks are smaller, ever think of that?

that chart shows nothing about how many hits to the fuel tank either.

btw even with selfsealing tanks shouldnt a explosive incideary round cause a fire regaurdeless this is very octane fuel which burns very easy causing secondary explosions, the jet fuel of the korean war had much higher ignition rates from gunfire.

Even hot flak shrapnel was know to ignite self sealing fueltanks on fire and is the reason of so many bombers and fighters were lost by aaa rather then enemy fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right - it doesn't show how many hits there are but the LW planes consistently come off worse. As per usual.

Maybe it's just another instance of Oleg pandering to the allied side just to flog more copies of the game?

Norris

LeadSpitter_
02-12-2005, 05:01 AM
norris come on now, what that chart shows is the ac with smallest fuel tank running out first and last to run out is the largest fueltank of the p47.

25 fuel in a 500 gallon tank is more then 50 fuel in 80 gallon tank

This is really getting ridiculous here especially from the german side we have the best planes in game and still so much whining.

I.JG53_Steuben
02-12-2005, 06:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

msalama
02-12-2005, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is really getting ridiculous here especially from the german side we have the best planes in game and still so much whining. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and you ain't just saying it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif So here's an idea: why don't we just f**k off from this fruitless thread, since we all heard what The Man from 1C said?

PS. S++! to Matz for all the work, nevertheless.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-12-2005, 09:54 AM
Hi,

Best planes in the game? I don't think so. They're no better or no worse than most contemporary allied. However, what makes them different is the piss poor 20mm (across the range) and the 190s achilles heel of a few .50 hits causing the light brown smoke out of fuel chestnut.

So, I agree with you - the "planes" are alright. The guns and DMs are suspect, though.

Cheers,
Norris

Buzzsaw-
02-12-2005, 10:13 AM
Salute

P-47's, which also have their tanks in the same position as the 190's, also suffer fuel leaks very often.

carguy_
02-12-2005, 04:06 PM
LW planes aren`t best planes in the game.VVS are.

Matz0r
02-12-2005, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>what that chart shows is the ac with smallest fuel tank running out first and last to run out is the largest fueltank of the p47. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chart shows ╬"Ł(u)/t(s)...

also, P-47 tank never runs out on the chart.

Buzzsaw-
02-12-2005, 06:47 PM
Salute

I fly the P-47 all the time, and very often have run out of fuel as a result of fuel leaks.

And YES, the P-47 has DOUBLE the fuel of a 190.

p1ngu666
02-13-2005, 06:03 PM
on zero, a white fuel leak drains all tanks...
no self seal, but zero had 3 tanks i think