Video got me fired up - What to fly?

[bhunter2112]

We are all so used to the HUGE plane set in IL2 and once we play SOW/BOB we will probably not be able to go back (although we say we will keep both on our rig) to IL2 because everything will be WAY better (I hope). We are looking at about 10 flyable TYPES correct?

What do you mostly want to fly? I am chomping at the bit to get at the FMB and fly the BF109.

[TheGrunch]

What do you mostly want to fly?
I crave Tiger Moth, actually, until I think I've earned something better. :)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Well, apparently there are 11 flyables confirmed (without counting the "probables" and variants).

I don't remember exactly, but I think it's about the same number of flyables we had when Il-2 first came out.

Considering it will receive expansions just like Il-2, my guess is we'll probably end up with the same, if not more planes than we currently have.

Oh yeah, the plane I want to fly the most... Well, for the sake of old-school fighter style, Spitfire.

To be more precise, doing a slow roll over the airfield in a bright summer day :mrgreen:

[AndyJWest]

I'm with TheGrunch here. I'll start with the Tiger Moth. No doubt I'll try everything as soon as I've got a vague idea how it all works though.

I want to see if I can do a Lomcevak in the Sukhoi Su-26: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomcovak. I hope it has smoke for display purposes too...

[Romanator21]

Bolingbroke and Fiat Br.20 :)

[Foo'bar]

Ju 88

[Flyby]

We are all so used to the HUGE plane set in IL2 and once we play SOW/BOB we will probably not be able to go back (although we say we will keep both on our rig) to IL2 because everything will be WAY better (I hope). We are looking at about 10 flyable TYPES correct?

What do you mostly want to fly? I am chomping at the bit to get at the FMB and fly the BF109.
+1. I look forward to the immersion of having to decide on either swatting that Spit or heeding that little red low-fuel lamp. A no-brainer, actually. Swat the Spit! :D
Flyby out

[MikkOwl]

Bf-110. I really like that aircraft. I have a bit of a fascination for more stuff to mess with (engine management for example), and two engines is more interesting than one. Having dual throttles also is a reason.

I have been flying a 1942 version G-2 in the "war clouds" server on hyperlobby. But man, it's hopeless. All the other planes used by the allies are 1944 spec on that server. Tempest MkV, the very latest versions Thunderbolts and Mustangs and bombers too. A very unfair set up, the 110 being antiquated and outclassed in every category. It is like asking for a guaranteed death if approaching any other plane. Proudly I can say I do survive a lot of encounters anyway, and I have had some nice opportunities to blow people away. So I figure that when coming to Storm of War, where the Bf 110 had an outright speed and firepower advantage, it has to be a walk in the park in comparison. Besides, 25% of the fighters on the Luftwaffe side in BoB were Bf 110's, and they need pilots :) Others will shy away from them, grabbing the 'best' available fighter to give them the best advantage.

[Eldur]

What a question.... Bf-110 :D

It's faster than the 109E... better armament... I think it's a bit like 190 vs 109 later on. But don't stay with the bombers :D

[MikkOwl]

I wonder if the online servers will enforce any kind of realistic make up of the planes available. Historically only something like 25% of the British planes were Spitfires, the rest being the far slower and less agile Hurricane, and I'd really hate to face only the elite best plane that was only available in small numbers when reality was that most planes were Hurricanes. It would not be Battle of Britain if it was populated by the latest Spitfire model only.

The ideal would be little 'battles' that go on for a few hours each, with new missions generated and some stuff like that, with realistically limited amounts of planes and planetypes, as well as pilots. All on a small scale as the online servers aren't quite WW2 scale.

Then, while the equipment remains historical, players are still free to devise their own tactics, with the after-the-fact experience and knowledge available to them. I.e. Bf 110's won't fly bomber escort next to the bombers, the Hurricanes won't fly VIC formations, the Luftwaffe won't abandon their air superiority strategy in favour of strategic bombing on London. I'd like to see how this alternate version works out.

[AndyJWest]

I suppose you could try setting up a server where you just selected RAF or Luftwaffe, and then had your plane allocated to you to keep the balance right, but that might encourage people to keep leaving and rejoining until they got what they wanted. Personally, I'd like to see a system that allocated 'scores' differently depending on what you were flying, and what you were attacking. If hits doing significant damage on a Bf 109 when flying a Spit scored 10 pts each, give 15 points for the same hits in a Hurricane. Damage to a He 111 should score higher still (you are trying to defend your territory, not just looking for 'kills'). No doubt there would still be arguments about getting the points balance right, but this might at least stop everyone flying the same planes.

[MikkOwl]

WWII Online has a limited amount of aircraft available, produced in virtual factories and shipped by commanders to each airbase. The rank of the pilot restricts the plane types - experienced get the better stuff, inexperienced don't. It's messed up though, as if all the bad planes are used up and there's a bunch of slightly better ones laying around, and you don't have the high enough rank, you cannot fly at all.

As for your system of score, yes, I think score should be adjusted for what was accomplished in what (also exists in WWII online - it checks how much your machine is 'worth' compared to the target's machine, and the target acts as a multiplier to the default score. A cheap machine bringing down an expensive one gives tons of multiplication = tons of score. And vice versa.

Regarding allocation, I think one should be able to set one's plane preference. If there are free ones, one gets it automatically. If others outrank you and it's limited, then they get priority to the machine, but no rank restrictions. If your preference is not available, you get the plane choosing menu to find another ride.

[Avimimus]

Blenheim/Bolingbroke first.

[IceFire]

The Hurricane and the Spitfire the most followed by the Bf110.

I'd love to make the Hurricane work for me against the 109E... but I know it will be very hard to do. It already is. Although not historical the Spitfire I and the 109E are excellently matched... should provide some fantastic battles.

[MikkOwl]

What did the Blenheim do in the battle of britain? I've never heard or read much about it, but it keeps appearing all the time in sims. It's like a 'no name' brand plane to me almost.

The Hurricanes have their good and bad parts, like any other planes. As long as you have something on your opponent's plane that you can use against him, it's not at all so hopeless (been reading and soaking up too much "In Pursuit", a book about virtual air combat, heh heh). Hurricane turns amazingly well, you will -always- lose the 109's if they ever get behind. Speed and roll rate is different, and the inability of the merlin to accept negative G-forces. Snap rolls work in the Hurricane, with no ill effects to the engine. It was difficult at first for me but now I think it's the most awesome maneuver to employ in slow rolling planes (Can get a 110G, P38 and Ju-88 to do faster-than-Fw-190 rollrates if you give me two seconds). The many machine guns on the Hurricane are also the easiest thing of any plane to shoot into the canopy or cooling of a 109 and kill the bastard pilot - go for high deflection snap shots, easy to pull off if you can just drag your sights in their path. The high RPM, so many bullets, covering such a large area, constantly, whenever thumbing the trigger. Not sooo amazing from behind though :)

[Bobb4]

What did the Blenheim do in the battle of britain? I've never heard or read much about it, but it keeps appearing all the time in sims. It's like a 'no name' brand plane to me almost.



The Battle of Britain
The Blenheim units operated throughout the battle, often taking heavy casualties, although they were never accorded the publicity of the fighter squadrons.

The Blenheim units raided German occupied airfields throughout July to December 1940, both during daylight hours and at night. Although most of these raids were unproductive there were some successes; on 1 August five out of 12 Blenheims sent to attack Haamstede and Evere (Brussels) were able to bomb, destroying or heavily damaging three Bf 109s of II./JG 27 and apparently killing a Staffelkapitan identified as Hauptmann Albrecht von Ankum-Frank. Two other 109s were claimed by Blenheim gunners.[6][f]Another successful raid on Haamstede was made by a single Blenheim on 7 August which destroyed one 109 of 4./JG 54, heavily damaged another and caused lighter damage to four more.[7]

There were also some missions which produced an almost 100% casualty rate amongst the Blenheims; one such operation was mounted on 13 August 1940 against a Luftwaffe airfield near Aalborg in north-eastern Denmark by 12 aircraft of 82 Squadron. One Blenheim returned early (the pilot was later charged and due to appear before a court martial but was killed on another operation), the other 11, which reached Denmark, were shot down, five by flak and six by Bf 109s.[8] It is a testament to the courage of the men in these units that they continued to operate throughout these months with little respite and with little of the publicity accorded to Fighter Command.

As well as the bombing operations, Blenheim-equipped units had been formed to carry out long-range strategic reconnaissance missions over Germany and German-occupied territories. In this role, the Blenheims once again proved to be too slow and vulnerable against Luftwaffe fighters and they took constant casualties

[TheGrunch]

I wonder if the online servers will enforce any kind of realistic make up of the planes available.
It'll depend entirely upon the server, I'm sure. Some people will never play on a server where they can't fly their favourite aircraft. Zuti's MDS already incorporates this sort of feature in Il-2 by limiting the number of each aircraft that it's possible to fly, hopefully it'll be possible in SoW fairly soon after release.

[DB605]

109E for me. Actually i'm already waiting later add-ons :) Channel front and African theatre '41-'42 with Friedrich...future looks very promising. But BoB will be great start to long airwar...

[Skoshi Tiger]

Hurricane of course. The plane that won the Battle of Britain!
.
..
...
Keep the line tight and wait for the nibbles. ;)

[csThor]

109 ... not a tough choice. Second will probably be the 110. ;)

[zakkandrachoff]

in WOP the 109 is the best aircraft.
but the most flying in SOW, far away, will be the Spitfire and Hurricane. TAke off whit the bomber over the head (noob).
But i dont like shoting down bombers. i hate the gunners. I, sure, will fly 109 and 110 escorts, and spitfire for clear the tail to the hurricanes.

Damn, why england dont produced mass the Gloster F.9/37´??!!. Would be great that plane against heinkels and 110

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Gloster_f9_37.jpg

I like very much that of English small Raids over germans airfields.

[Matze81]

The 109 and the Fw-190 (if included).

[GBrutus]

I'm Looking forward to the Spitfire the most, definitely. After that it'll be the Hurricane and Tiger Moth for a laugh. The BoB era German aircraft don't appeal to me too much except for the Bf 110.

[AndyJWest]

The 109 and the Fw-190 (if included).

Sorry, Matze. You won't be seeing a Fw-190 in SoW:BoB - they didn't enter service until 1941. No doubt they will make an appearance later in the series though.

It's just as well the Luftwaffe didn't have the 190, they would have altered the balance significantly.

[kimosabi]

I don't give a rats ass what planes they put up because we all know pretty much which ones they are going to be. As for missions and mission building I'd say stay with the IL-2 1946 set up but make them larger. I want to really need to take droptanks for a change, not just fill her up 25% + tanks and drop them when engaging for better maneuverability.:)

[TheGrunch]

I want to really need to take droptanks for a change, not just fill her up 25% + tanks and drop them when engaging for better maneuverability.:)
Well, the reason the 109s had such a hard time for petrol during the battle is that drop-tanks weren't used, I'm pretty sure.

[kimosabi]

Well, the reason the 109s had such a hard time for petrol during the battle is that drop-tanks weren't used, I'm pretty sure.

You are correct. The BF109 E7 was the first 109 to use droptanks(mid 1942). That wasn't my point though. I was referring to maps and missions/missionbuilding that covers later episodes of the war, which I'm fairly certain will be added later on. Kinda like IL-2.

[Igo kyu]

I think I remember reading there were drop tanks, but they were faulty?

[Fergal69]

Bf-110. I really like that aircraft. I have a bit of a fascination for more stuff to mess with (engine management for example), and two engines is more interesting than one. Having dual throttles also is a reason.

I have been flying a 1942 version G-2 in the "war clouds" server on hyperlobby. But man, it's hopeless. All the other planes used by the allies are 1944 spec on that server. Tempest MkV, the very latest versions Thunderbolts and Mustangs and bombers too. A very unfair set up, the 110 being antiquated and outclassed in every category. It is like asking for a guaranteed death if approaching any other plane. Proudly I can say I do survive a lot of encounters anyway, and I have had some nice opportunities to blow people away. So I figure that when coming to Storm of War, where the Bf 110 had an outright speed and firepower advantage, it has to be a walk in the park in comparison. Besides, 25% of the fighters on the Luftwaffe side in BoB were Bf 110's, and they need pilots :) Others will shy away from them, grabbing the 'best' available fighter to give them the best advantage.

I too am a fan of the ME110 & look forward to other versions in SOW, together with possible night fighter version with musk installation & working radar

[TheGrunch]

That wasn't my point though. I was referring to maps and missions/missionbuilding that covers later episodes of the war, which I'm fairly certain will be added later on. Kinda like IL-2.
Well, have fun waiting. :p

[kimosabi]

I think I remember reading there were drop tanks, but they were faulty?

The 109's didn't have additional fuel lines until E7 and you are correct about the quality. The first tanks they used were made of plywood, prone to leaking and also had a suspected tendency to self ignite. Alot of pilots refused to carry droptanks all together at the early stages of the war because of that.

[Crumpp]

The first tanks they used were made of plywood, prone to leaking and also had a suspected tendency to self ignite.

The USAAF's were made of paper and all tanks on any airplane leak quite bit.

Its normal, in fact you have to be careful as some airplanes will go a step farther and siphon right out the vent tubes if your not careful.

also had a suspected tendency to self ignite.

Interesting, Do you have a source on this?

If the fueler did not ground the airplane properly then any aircraft tank can ignite when fueled.

[kimosabi]

The USAAF's were made of paper and all tanks on any airplane leak quite bit.

Its normal, in fact you have to be careful as some airplanes will go a step farther and siphon right out the vent tubes if your not careful.



Interesting, Do you have a source on this?

If the fueler did not ground the airplane properly then any aircraft tank can ignite when fueled.

My sauce (http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/the-luftwaffe-and-drop-fuel-tanks-1939-40/)

I was not 100% correct when stating that the plywood tanks were used in BoB. They were used and developed before BoB and they had a tendency to "unglue" themselves, causing terrible leaks. They did develop a metal variant for the E-7 but the drag penalty showed to be quite critical, especially for an aircraft designed as a "clean fighter" such as the 109.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/photoreports/blenheim2001/varasto-misc007.jpg

[Crumpp]

That is a website that lists no references.

Here are some of our 300 Liter Drop tanks:

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/droptank.jpg

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/shop1.jpg

In practice, the tank was prone to terrible leaks and suspected of a tendency to ignite.

The Germans did develop a drop tank for the Bf 109 prior to the invasion of France. Unfortunately, the design was rather hasty and the tank (made of plywood) tended to come ‘unglued’ (great shades of Ta 154!) when in use. The design allowed for about 70 gallons of fuel to be carried. Because of the leakage problems and the potential that resulted in it being a fire hazard it went unused.

Think about it. It is very easy to test the integrity of a tank or if a glue will hold up to fuel. It is done all the time in fact by home builders in the US. Are the Germans just extraordinarily stupid as a race or is the author of your website not very familiar with the details of real airplanes?

Simply put, your source makes some pretty hard to swallow claims without referencing a single source.

Here is a Henschel 123 with a Drop Tank in Spain...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KezhQ6waZT0/SWSco6ZEaXI/AAAAAAAALGw/YZNb0cdUcsA/s1600-h/dfgt.jpg

Here is more info on the Allied paper drop tanks....

The British devised a system using laminated and glued paper that would hold 108 gallons of fuel - for one mission!

http://home.earthlink.net/~charlesfelton/id19.html

[kimosabi]

Well if you should find these claims hard to swallow, Crummp, that is pretty much your problem. So instead of posting USAF and RAF solutions to the droptanks(which has very little to do with the Luftwaffe versions BTW), you could always prove me wrong instead of acting like a wounded pig.

[Crumpp]

I simply point out that your proof is "somebody wrote it on the internet" and you think I am somehow wounded?

:rolleyes:

The correct response is to find a credible source.

[kimosabi]

No, when you challenge someone upon any matter YOUR correct response would be to counter the info in an orderly fashion using facts, not just going on and on about other solutions that doesn't relate. Otherwise you pretty much come out as a whiner.

Prove me wrong and I'll stand corrected, nemas problemas.:)

[Crumpp]

What?

You made the claim the Germans couldn't build a drop tank that worked. I asked for your source and you gave out a gaming site that does not reference any sources either.

In fact, it not only makes unsubstantiated claims but erroneously tries to link the issues with the Ta-154 laminates.

The Ta-154 laminates occurred because of the harmonics of the aeroelasticity properties of the wing. Germany did not have the large scale high velocity wind tunnels that would have caught this issue in development. In fact, nobody had them in the 1940's.

The epoxy used was too strong in the Ta-154 for the application and broke down the structure of the supporting wood. The epoxy was changed to a reduced strength formula with more flexibility and this issue was solved.

Your article sounds stupid when it tries to link chemical breakdown of the glue due to fuel and the Ta-154 development.

To test adhesive resistance to chemical compounds simply involves the very difficult process of dropping a hunk of dried glue you think is suitable for your application into a jar of the chemical compound and letting it set. You pull it out on occasion to check to see if the hunk of glue is still solid....

You think maybe the Germans were smart enough to use the industry standard of dropping a chunk of dried glue into a jar of gasoline and watching it for weeks?

[kimosabi]

I find your theories hard to swallow, Crumpp. Got any source on that?

[Crumpp]

I got the report from Focke Wulf on microfiche reel. We are restoring a FW-190 so the Ta-154 stuff is of passing interest. We do have the only Revi-16B for the Schräge Musik complete with calibration tool set know to still exist. We donated it to the Smithsonian.

AFAIK, the a usable quantity of the substitute was not available and the Ta-154 was canceled by Focke Wulf. IIRC, only ~8 Ta-154's were ever built.

You can order the reels here:

Just write them and tell them the specific subject you want. Reels are $30.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/collections/captured.cfm

It is the original documentation from the company. The Focke Wulf collection is the largest of the Axis Captured Documents and we access it frequently in our restorations.

Your straw man aside....the discussion is about the claim drop tanks were suspected of exploding....

What person who has first hand knowledge uttered the words or what report investigates the incidents of German drop tanks being "suspected"??

[kimosabi]

Sir Crumpp, since you still haven't provided me with any directsource at all(kinda like that "gaming site" huh?), your arguments are no better than mine. Please drop the patronizing comments and grow a pair. I don't give a crap if you guys build FW190's because they don't relate to the problems they had with the early droptanks. Neither does the 109 E7 because they also used the metal variants, except drag issues ofcourse.

It seems to me your only beef here is about a claim that the early plywood tanks were suspected to self ignite. I don't know if that happened or not but a suspicion is just that, not necessarily documented facts. I don't know who "said it" first either. The Henschel 123's tanks were fitted with an igniter though, so that the tanks would self destruct after they were dropped. Maybe that was the source?

Strawman my @$$. Since you're so eager to show that you're restoring old fighters, I figure you should have more contacts than me on that subject. Use them, then come back here and prove me wrong. As I've said before, I'd be more than happy to correct myself on that claim because, just as you, I'm interested in facts not fiction. For now, my posts still stand.

Thanks for linking me to the Smithsonian though, I'm working on my requests as we speak lol.

[Crumpp]

I'm interested in facts not fiction.

Good. So why have you been so resistant to acknowledge unfounded claims from a gaming site is not a good source??

:confused:

Do you think it somehow detracts from you as a person or some imagined internet standing?

Thanks for linking me to the Smithsonian though, I'm working on my requests as we speak lol.

Good, my intention was to help you.

My suggestion is to walk down to your local FBO and talk to the lineman about fueling airplanes in the meantime.

This will be my last bit of advice to you as frankly I just don't think very much of you after your last few post's. You are not worth the effort and feel free to make any ridiculous claims you wish in the future.

You made the ignore list! :grin:

[kimosabi]

So instead of just providing us with the source and info to totally prove me wrong, you just walk away while firing off a couple more badly camouflaged insults? Troll is obvious.
Attacking a source without proving it wrong is just ignorant.

What, Crumpp, did you think that I would just accept what you've said in your posts without any source? At all? You do remember that you were the one asking for a source and I gave it to you, you have provided NADA, except attacking a source for part of its title, and rambling on about RAF and USAF solutions.. Did you think of me as easy prey, is that it? Cool, I love it when people underestimate me... Ignore list? Well, that's your problemo hombre, not mine.

[Matze81]

Sorry, Matze. You won't be seeing a Fw-190 in SoW:BoB - they didn't enter service until 1941. No doubt they will make an appearance later in the series though.

It's just as well the Luftwaffe didn't have the 190, they would have altered the balance significantly.

Yeah, I haven't seen any screenshots of the 190 yet, so I guess you're right. I still hope the 190 makes the original release of SoW:BoB, though.

Cause eventhough the Fock Wulf 190 appeared after what is generally considered the timeframe of the Battle of Britain, it did fight over the english channel and therefore would not be out of place in this scenerio, as far as I'm concerned.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I'm hoping I'll have to fly ab initio in a Tiger Moth, advanced in a Harvard, pass the wings test, go on to armament training, then get posted to either an OCU or direct to a squadron to fly whatever they flew.

Not sure what'll happen on line, but I bet it won't be the same ratio as 2 or 3 RAF squadrons at a time going up against 150 bombers plus escorts in relays -Keith Park won't be available!

But however it's done and whatever we fly, it looks as though we're in for a treat.

Tally-Ho.

[Squawk]

Just perusing the forums and the drop tank discussion caught my attention.

(In the spirit of the thread, I must say I am looking forward to flying the 109, but then I'm primarily a 109 driver in Il2)

Regarding the alleged ignition of the early Luftwaffe drop tanks.

( my 3 years experience with aviation fuels gives me some insight into the problem)

Disclaimer: Modern aviation gasoline 100LL is of a lower octane than most of the gas used in the high performance engines of yesteryear, but the principles are the same.

The question is not "Did early German drop tanks ever self ignite?" but rather, "Under what conditions is self ignition possible?"

Aviation gasoline does not just wake up one morning and decide to go 'BOOM' there is always a trigger, one must only find it.

Gasoline in its liquid form is not flammable, it is the vapor that it gives off as it evaporates that burns. These fumes are also not 'reactive' per say, it needs either open flame, a spark or a sufficiently hot enough source to ignite (auto ignition). If we eliminate the open flame, and heat source from the equation (most unlikely) we are left with sparks as the most probable.

Without knowing if the tanks had any electronics (ie gauges, wires, ect) installed, the likely culprit would be 'static' electricity.

Physics lesson aside, (and without reference to my tedious training video's) lets just say that under 'fluid dynamics' a turbulent disturbance of any fluid creates some static electricity as the molecules collide with each other.

The wood itself is another piece of the puzzle, wood is a decent insulator of electricity (laminates and composites also suffer from this property). And as such modern composite aircraft have specific grounding locations to permit the dissipation of static electricity as the aircraft is being fueled.

The most likely times for the build up of this static electricity would be the fueling of the tank itself (on the ground), and in flight after some of the fuel is burnt off, allowing the remaining fuel to slosh around inside the tank.
(vibrations from the aircraft, as well as maneuvering and air turbulence)


Once this static charge has built up, it simply needs to arc to an oppositely (or lesser) charged object and there is the spark (ignition source).

On the ground it would likely be the hose nozzle or the lineman, but in the air if a large enough difference in charge between the tank and the aircraft were created (and the tank were not grounded properly to the aircraft) the tank could arc to the aircraft itself, and run the risk of igniting any fuel leaking out of the tank. Or possibly the fuel vapor inside the tank itself.



Now I realize this is a HUGE post for a first time poster, but I hope it sheds some light on how drop tanks could have possibly ignited. (and I couldn't think of how to say it in fewer words, incomplete info is almost as bad as incorrect info)

[Crumpp]

You are correct in that static electricity is an issue for any aircraft when refueling. It generally occurs between the tank and fuel nozzle....

A drop tank is part of the aircraft's static charge and a mechanism must be introduced to discharge it.

A lineman sticking a fuel nozzle to an ungrounded aircraft will cause a static discharge.

The question becomes what is going to cause the static discharge in our drop tank?

http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/homebuilt-aircraft/aircraft-refueling-1.php

[Squawk]

Good link Crumpp.

However I think this may still leave out a possibility.



A drop tank is part of the aircraft's static charge and a mechanism must be introduced to discharge it.



I am unfamiliar with the drop tank in question's construction, and as such can not offer more than a hypothetical guess.

It was stated that the early tanks were constructed mostly out of wood.

Should there 'not' be an adequate grounding system between the aircraft and the tank, It could be 'possible' that due to woods poor conductive properties, that the aircraft may be isolated from the static charge inside the drop tank, created by the fuel sloshing around. (as opposed to the general static charge both would acquire from moving through the air)

Again this is theoretical, and in all likely hood was thought of by the designers at the time and proper 'bonding' was conducted. Should that system become faulty..... who knows?