FWs Durabillity

[Furio]

We should not be surprised to see wings broke at a certain place. As tough as it can be, any wing has its weakest point, and it will fail there most of the time.

In these gun cam footage, we see wing breaking more or less at mid wingspan, where FW main spar has a bend to the rear, to make room for the landing gear, and where usually is installed an MGFF cannon with 60 rounds drum magazine, both having a significant mass. Outboard of mid span, then, there is the aileron with its bending moment.

Summing up all these factors, we can guess here we have wing’s weakest point, but, as KG said above, this means nothing. What matters is how much weak it is, when hit by machine gun or cannon fire.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RPS69

They always break on the same place. It looks like some repetitive damage on an arcade game.

This was exactly the point I was trying to make about the vulnerability of the 20 mm ammo magazine in the FW-190's wing.

This is confirmed not just by gun camera footage, but also by anecdotal evidence from a LW veteran who flew the FW-190 in combat.

If you look at a cutaway drawing of the FW-190A:

http://photobucket.com/images/fw%201...away%20drawing

You will notice that there is a drum-style 20mm ammo magazine just outboard of the the landing gear, right next to one of the wing spars.

Compare that to where the gun camera footage shows the wing breaking/exploding and there's a pretty good correlation.

Any plane which carries box or drum-style magazines filled with HE or APEX rounds, not just the FW-190, should be vulnerable to a "critical hit" which causes some or all of the remaining ammo to explode, but only if they are hit by an explosive round. Planes which carry belts of HE or APEX ammo should also be vulnerable, but only one bullet/shell should explode.

But, in terms of the .50 caliber effectiveness against airframes, IL2 makes it too easy to cause airframe damage.

For example, take a close look at the video cited above:

0:15 - 0:22 Bf-109. Hits observed on fuselage, no parts fall off, not obvious damage. Likely result: damaged.
0:23 - 0:27 FW-190. As above. Likely result: damaged.
0:28 - 0:47 Bf-109. Hits observed on fuselage, fuel tank leakage, then engine damage (smoke), final shot shows flames & plane in slow rolling dive, CK
0:48 - 0:51 Bf-109. Hits observed on fuselage, fuel tank/coolant leak, inverted spin but regains control. Likely result: damaged.
0:52 - 1:10 FW-190. No hits observed, but pilot bails out due to morale failure/poor tactical position, CK
1:11 - 1:23 FW-190. Hits observed on fuselage, further hits cause engine smoke or fuel/coolant leak, next frame shows fuel tank explosion, CK
1:24 - 1:29 FW-190. Hits observed on wing, ammo magazine blows up severing wing, CK
1:30- 1:33 FW-190, Hits observed on fuselage, fuel tank explosion, CK

Notice what's missing?

NO GREAT BIG HOLES IN THE AIRFRAME. NO AIRFRAME FAILURE (without secondary explosion). EVEN THE CONTROL SURFACES STAY PUT!

IMO, it should be just about impossible to make an airplane fall apart using .30 caliber guns, and very difficult to do so using .50 caliber guns. Heavy damage textures should be very difficult to trigger using .30 caliber guns and somewhat difficult using 0.50 calibers. This isn't just the FW-190, its just about all the planes in the game.

The exceptions are:

Any caliber weapon should be able to cause secondary explosions which can tear a plane apart.

Any caliber weapon should cause progressive airframe weakening which can cause airframe failure if the target plane subsequently attempts to fly at maximum speed (or overspeed) or attempts to pull high G maneuvers.

0.50 caliber guns might be able to break the airframe on a relatively small, lightly built aircraft, particularly one which isn't fully aerobatic (i.e., not stressed to cope with more than 3 g positive or -1 G negative).

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Gun cam is only a tiny portion of the actual fight.

While gun camera films don't capture the approach and maneuver phases of the engagement, and fail to capture very high deflection shots, they still can be quite valuable.

They are a very good method of understanding how pilots historically made their attacks (notice the huge preponderance of low-deflection, close range shots?), and how the target planes respond when attacked (notice how very few late war German pilots don't immediately break when fired on?) which is valuable for AI programming.

For damage modeling, gun camera footage is a good method of getting the damage effects right.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

A typical FW190 discussion from years ago, there's been plenty of them around over the years.

Lol post#107 from this old discussion on FW190 refers to old DM discussions around that time.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...-series-Forums

That discussion thread actually pulls in a lot of good evidence - although much of it anecdotal - about how the FW-190 flew and took damage.

That's good for players learning how to fly the plane, and for mission builders, but not so good for developers. Anecdotes are useless there. Instead, what we need is numbers, ideally statistics, and perhaps good photographs.

The exceptions might be reports by very experienced test pilots. For example, I might take Eric Brown's or Hanna Reitsch's opinions at face value.

For pilots with less experience flying different aircraft types, what's valuable is simpler numbers about the planes they knew best. For example, if Robert Johnson said that the P-47C-10 could go X mph at 20,000' at Y inches of manifold pressure, then he's probably right.

But that only applies to flight modeling. DM modeling is a can of worms. There's just no way it can be as realistic as FM since we literally lack the tools to model it correctly. All you can do is get it "in the ballpark," relative to other planes.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

NO GREAT BIG HOLES IN THE AIRFRAME. NO AIRFRAME FAILURE (without secondary explosion). EVEN THE CONTROL SURFACES STAY PUT!

IMO, it should be just about impossible to make an airplane fall apart using .30 caliber guns, and very difficult to do so using .50 caliber guns. Heavy damage textures should be very difficult to trigger using .30 caliber guns and somewhat difficult using 0.50 calibers. This isn't just the FW-190, its just about all the planes in the game.

The exceptions are:

Any caliber weapon should be able to cause secondary explosions which can tear a plane apart.

Any caliber weapon should cause progressive airframe weakening which can cause airframe failure if the target plane subsequently attempts to fly at maximum speed (or overspeed) or attempts to pull high G maneuvers.

0.50 caliber guns might be able to break the airframe on a relatively small, lightly built aircraft, particularly one which isn't fully aerobatic (i.e., not stressed to cope with more than 3 g positive or -1 G negative).

Totally in agreement.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Still, american .50s are really a bad weapon to down B17s!

It is not the weapon of choice - but one good, concentrated burst to vulnerable areas (B-17:fuel tanks, engines, pilot(s))-does still hurt or kill - even fat cars.

Originally Posted by gaunt1

soviet 12.7 is underpowered currently.

My feeling is different, if you have a stable gunnery platform, the UB is IMHO on par with other HMGs - you can make quite a mess of German planes with only one UB the usually give you in a YAK. Yak3 has two UB, even better, MiG-3 too - and there they suck balls, and I think it is because MiG-3 is so unstable and the white tracers are not very useful for correcting aim, too.

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

you can make quite a mess of German planes

You can make a mess of german planes with just about everything. They are so weak. Test it against tougher planes.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

This was exactly the point I was trying to make about the vulnerability of the 20 mm ammo magazine in the FW-190's wing.

This is confirmed not just by gun camera footage, but also by anecdotal evidence from a LW veteran who flew the FW-190 in combat.

The comments made by the pilot were with reference to the FW190 A-8 and the Mk108 wing canons.

If he was caught low on return to base he would empty (fire) the wing Mk108's in case of enemy attack from behind and above.

iirc.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

You can make a mess of german planes with just about everything. They are so weak. Test it against tougher planes.

I wouldn't call the German planes "weak." Most of them seem to be more or less right - but with odd inconsistencies.

What might be an issue is that the basic DM for many of them is OLD, in some cases dating back to the original IL2 Sturmovik game. There are probably a lot of simplifications and inconsistencies still lurking there, waiting to be bug stomped.

[RPS69]

Just find some time to spend testing .50's on lots of planes.

I used a B25 rear gunner, and each time placed a different plane at it's rear on the runaway.

Planes I tested that won't break a wing:

FW190 A&D
Bf110
P51
P47
P38
F4U1
F6F
F4F
F2A

Planes that will break it:

Bf109
A6M
Spitfire
Tempest
P40
P39
La5
Yak9

I also tested the other thread beginner theory about 190 no taking fire when hitting their engine with .50's.

190 Do take fire, but it is represented on the cabin.
All other airplanes will also take fire, but it will be showed on different places, not necessary on their engines.

So... it is not a 190 issue.

Now, if you hit the wing, even the AI at some point, on any of those planes, will lost control of it.
Also, 109's do break their wings with .50's, but doing so on a moving target it is much more difficult than when stationary. The amount of well placed and consecutive shots are difficult to achieve(as the P40 or spitfire)

Only the Zero it's much more fragile to the .50's. A well placed burst will break it easily.

If someone is interested, this is the test mission

[MAIN]
MAP SandsOfTime/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
player r0100
army 1
playerNum 0
[SEASON]
Year 1940
Month 6
Day 15
[WEATHER]
WindDirection 0.0
WindSpeed 0.0
Gust 0
Turbulence 0
[MDS]
MDS_Radar_SetRadarToAdvanceMode 0
MDS_Radar_RefreshInterval 0
MDS_Radar_DisableVectoring 0
MDS_Radar_EnableTowerCommunications 1
MDS_Radar_ShipsAsRadar 0
MDS_Radar_ShipRadar_MaxRange 100
MDS_Radar_ShipRadar_MinHeight 100
MDS_Radar_ShipRadar_MaxHeight 5000
MDS_Radar_ShipSmallRadar_MaxRange 25
MDS_Radar_ShipSmallRadar_MinHeight 0
MDS_Radar_ShipSmallRadar_MaxHeight 2000
MDS_Radar_ScoutsAsRadar 0
MDS_Radar_ScoutRadar_MaxRange 2
MDS_Radar_ScoutRadar_DeltaHeight 1500
MDS_Radar_HideUnpopulatedAirstripsFromMinimap 0
MDS_Radar_ScoutGroundObjects_Alpha 5
MDS_Radar_ScoutCompleteRecon 0
MDS_Misc_DisableAIRadioChatter 0
MDS_Misc_DespawnAIPlanesAfterLanding 1
MDS_Misc_HidePlayersCountOnHomeBase 0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat1_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 1.0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat2_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 1.0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat3_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 1.0
[RespawnTime]
Bigship 1800
Ship 1800
Aeroanchored 1800
Artillery 1800
Searchlight 1800
[Wing]
r0100
r0101
[r0100]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.B_25J1
Fuel 100
weapons default
[r0100_Way]
TAKEOFF 14379.60 26740.23 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 13827.45 26741.52 500.00 300.00 &0
[r0101]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.FW_190D9
Fuel 100
weapons default
[r0101_Way]
TAKEOFF 14379.60 26740.23 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 13836.59 26750.66 500.00 300.00 &0
[NStationary]
[Buildings]
[Bridge]
[House]