Will the Modelling of Destroyed Aircraft in BoB be Improved Compared to il2?

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

Maybe my observation is too late to matter?

In il2, if an aircraft has it's tail shot away, it tumbles. In real life an aircraft in this situation would dive towards the ground vertically.

The change in the Centre of Gravity of the aircraft would have caused the aircraft to point towards mother earth and no control inputs would have changed this.

Also, if an aircraft looses a wing, does it continue to rotate until it hits the ground?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[CrazySchmidt]

I've seen actual footage of aircraft tumbling out of control similar to what we have with IL-2, so I'm not so sure that it isn't accurate.

CS.:)

[MB_Avro_UK]

I've seen actual footage of aircraft tumbling out of control similar to what we have with IL-2, so I'm not so sure that it isn't accurate.

CS.:)

Have to disagree. An aircraft that has lost it's tail section will not 'tumble'. It will immediatly adopt a nose down attitude until it breaks up or hits the ground.

An example is of a British European Airways Vanguard airliner in the 1960's that lost it's tail section over France due to loss of compression problems.

The Vanguard entered a vertical dive almost immediately with no 'tumbling'.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[SlipBall]

Hi all,

Maybe my observation is too late to matter?

In il2, if an aircraft has it's tail shot away, it tumbles. In real life an aircraft in this situation would dive towards the ground vertically.

The change in the Centre of Gravity of the aircraft would have caused the aircraft to point towards mother earth and no control inputs would have changed this.

Also, if an aircraft looses a wing, does it continue to rotate until it hits the ground?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.



I'm more concerned with just getting the enemy aircraft out of the war:-)

[Feuerfalke]

Are you sure? Got any videos of a crashing bomber? Or what do you take your conclusions from?

The wings still produce lift and without the stabilizer, they would probably tumble around the most heavy point, which should be the wings or slightly behind that area.

[Avimimus]

Have to disagree. An aircraft that has lost it's tail section will not 'tumble'. It will immediatly adopt a nose down attitude until it breaks up or hits the ground.

An example is of a British European Airways Vanguard airliner in the 1960's that lost it's tail section over France due to loss of compression problems.

The Vanguard entered a vertical dive almost immediately with no 'tumbling'.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

You know, I think it depends on the aircraft.

Il-2 definitely has its limits (B-29s gradually spinning for minutes before hitting the ground is probably an error). Still, we had this discussion in 2001. Some things, like a FW-190 remaining stable for a couple of seconds after losing a wing are seen in only two places: Il-2 and gun camera footage. In anycase, I assume it will be improved in BoB (and still be imperfect).

Here is a list I made earlier (remember this is pieced together from memory of things Oleg has said or hinted at over several years - it may be inaccurate in a number of ways):

- The ability for shock waves to throw objects (eg. barrels which roll around)

- Theoretically the ability to have elastic objects (eg. carry wires, wire fences)

- The aircraft damage model will be more detailed (eg. take into account impacts on individual spars) but will otherwise be similar to Il-2

- Structural failures will be possible. But it is unlikely that deformation will be (with the exception of wing warping which will be modeled)

- Machine gun impacts will be drawn on the model in real time but cannon impacts will be precut (like in Il-2)

- A more advanced damage model will exist for vehicles that will allow them to be disabled and potentially paves the way for a tank sim. Nothing is known regarding whether buildings will be collapsible or flammable. By the same token ships and trains are unknown

- It will be possible to kill enemy pilots/crew but there will not be a visual representation of damage to human tissues (in order to comply with ratings systems in some European countries)

- As in Il-2, it is very likely that "Taran" ramming attacks will be possible as will bouncing bombs off hard surfaces

- The modeling of the effects of wind and water on fires is still an unknown, the same goes for the modeling of damage inside the cockpit (eg. individually drawn bullet holes, smoke), furthermore we do not know if the players movement using the new six-degrees of freedom modeling will effect their vulnerability to bullets (eg. the pilot using the engine block as a shield while attacking bombers)

[DKoor]

Will the Modelling of Destroyed Aircraft in BoB be Improved Compared to il2?
Me thinks yes.
I think so because of the posted DM pictures.

[K_Freddie]

I'm sure it's all in the a/c fight model, and the aero-dynamic forces at the 'event point'.
I have no problems with this.

[proton45]

I don't have an answer but here is a cool video clip of B17's getting the biz from the Luftwaffe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe36UMRkRbk&NR=1


I wonder if the size and speed of the aeroplane might play a factor in how it responds to loosing a tail...

[DKoor]

B-17 in spin/out of control:shock:.

[ImMoreBetter]

Hi all,

Maybe my observation is too late to matter?

In il2, if an aircraft has it's tail shot away, it tumbles. In real life an aircraft in this situation would dive towards the ground vertically.

The change in the Centre of Gravity of the aircraft would have caused the aircraft to point towards mother earth and no control inputs would have changed this.



This is correct. The aircraft's nose would swing downward, as the center of gravity shifts forward. It would fall similar to a thrown object, as it still carries inertia.

[Feuerfalke]

I don't have an answer but here is a cool video clip of B17's getting the biz from the Luftwaffe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe36UMRkRbk&NR=1


I wonder if the size and speed of the aeroplane might play a factor in how it responds to loosing a tail...


I had considered posting a link to that video, too. I also remember a scene from the original Memphis Belle video, where a B17 turned into such a violent spin from losing an elevator, that the crew was unable to escape. IMHO the thing IL2 does wrong, is rather the fact that the vast minority of bombers shot in the tailsection actually lost half or the fuselage from that.

As a kid I've done a lot of "crash-simulations" with my lawn-dart-toy-plane. Originally designed to stay in the air for 30 minutes, the time in the air was dramatically reduced by removing the rudder or stabilizer. When I removed the tail-section, it tumbled very much like the planes in IL2.

[DK-nme]

when loosing the tail, there's no directionally stability and the plane ought to raise or lower the nose and then tumble/rotate and plummeting towards the ground - almost like in il-2.
The wings will make the plane rotate around the new axis level to the wings, going from wingtip to wingtip, because of loss of stability and lift...
Dont know wether this gives any meaning to U, but i havent got the time to write more...

DK-nme

[Feuerfalke]

when loosing the tail, there's no directionally stability and the plane ought to raise or lower the nose and then tumble/rotate and plummeting towards the ground - almost like in il-2.
The wings will make the plane rotate around the new axis level to the wings, going from wingtip to wingtip, because of loss of stability and lift...
Dont know wether this gives any meaning to U, but i havent got the time to write more...

DK-nme

That was exactly what I saw in the model-plane and what I think would be logical. If a plane would fly straight without the tailsection, why install it in the first place? :grin:

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

Ok here's an example. UK members may remember a 'Time Team' investigation into two B-17s that crashed in England after a mission in 1944.

In cloud, one B-17 cut off the tail of another B-17. The B-17 with no tail fell vertically. There were vertical penetrations of the engines, fuselage and wing into the ground.

An aircraft without a tail section will dive towards the ground until it meets mother earth.

This is because the new centre of gravity of the aircraft precludes any variation.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[robtek]

but it might be that the tailless b17 was in the vertical, nose-down position only just at the time of the impact, maybe?

[Oktoberfest]

but it might be that the tailless b17 was in the vertical, nose-down position only just at the time of the impact, maybe?

+1

[MB_Avro_UK]

+1


Sorry, I don't agree. If an aircraft looses it's tail section, the aerodynamic configuration of the aircraft is drastically changed.

It becomes 'nose heavy' to the extreme. And there is no elevator response possible.

The B-17 example I gave was witnessed by those on the ground. It was seen to fall vertically.

In other words, the aircraft in this situation becomes an 'arrow'.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[Arrow]

Sorry, I don't agree. If an aircraft looses it's tail section, the aerodynamic configuration of the aircraft is drastically changed.

It becomes 'nose heavy' to the extreme. And there is no elevator response possible.

The B-17 example I gave was witnessed by those on the ground. It was seen to fall vertically.

In other words, the aircraft in this situation becomes an 'arrow'.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

This is just one point of view, if you don't consider the loss of stability. In some instance the object may remain stable and shoot into the ground - or a small disturbance can throw the aircraft into non-stable regime and crash just as it is simulated in Il2 and just as physical simulations show..