Damage Model issue?

[robtek]

Well, it seems that the damage from a exploding fuel tank is only missing in the single engined planes.
It is also easy to dewing a 110.

[335th_GRAthos]

It is a well known Bf109 bug.

The rear tank explodes too easily (it had armored plating AFAIK) and when it does, it makes nice fireball but no damage.
The only thing it does is to make the plane lose most of its fuel (as pilot, you see the sudden drop in available fuel). If you were flying low on fuel, after the explosion, your engine will stop, out of fuel...).

~S~

[trademe900]

The damage models are porked in this game particularly in the sense Notafinger mentioned.

Wings coming off every time when a fuel tank ignites? This is the most common method of bomber destruction and it's quite silly. A bombers wing does would not come off like that and I've never read a combat report citing disintegration of any of the 3 bomber aircraft. This needs to be fixed... but I'm guessing nothing will happen until we have to cash out more hard earned $ on BOM.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by trademe900

The damage models are porked in this game particularly in the sense Notafinger mentioned.

Wings coming off every time when a fuel tank ignites? This is the most common method of bomber destruction and it's quite silly. A bombers wing does would not come off like that and I've never read a combat report citing disintegration of any of the 3 bomber aircraft. This needs to be fixed... but I'm guessing nothing will happen until we have to cash out more hard earned $ on BOM.

It would be very interesting to know the source of your knowledge regarding the stability of burning bomber wings.

I know for sure that high temperatures, and a fuel fire in a 220 mph slipstream is hot, will destroy the structural integrity of duraluminium really fast.

I have to concur that the process of loosing the wing should look different, like folding back at the weakened point and then ripping off i.e.

It is a fact however that aircrews did leave their planes in a hurry, if a fire wasn't extinguished really fast.

Usually a fighter pilot didn't have the time to watch the end of his target longer than a few seconds.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

It's a bug. The fuel tank "explodes" but doesn't damage the aircraft.

i think that in itself is a bug. fuel tank explosions are EXTREMELY rare. Because certain conditions must exist for explosive combustion inside a tank. Generally With a tank full, It will not happen. Sure, It will Burn like heck but it won't go boom, because fuel in itself does not explode, but the VAPOR does. Hence why if there is little to no vapor it will not burn. Gasoline, for example in it's purely liquid state does not burn, however the Fumes evaporating do, and burn very well they do. But burning does not equal an explosion. Even when an incendiary bullet or heat source enters the tank, there is a very small and fleeting window (trust me NASA didn't even know for sure when they researched if for the TWA flight 800 explosion) where the tank has the proper vapor pressure, volume, heat and fuel to air mixture to detonate.

As far as I can tell for their reports this combination of events must happen:
-Tank must be nearly empty
-Tank must be heated
-Tank must have proper Fuel/Air Ratio
-Tank must have the proper pressure
-Tank must be exposed to a properly powerful ignition source

All these add up to a pretty specific and rare event.

gimpy: I agree!

Exploding aircraft may not have been something impossible but it surely was a rare event.

As gimpy explained the window for explosion has to be met and this window is considerably smaller than the window for explosion.

Please don't believe Hollywood.

[Biggs]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

i think that in itself is a bug. fuel tank explosions are EXTREMELY rare. Because certain conditions must exist for explosive combustion inside a tank. Generally With a tank full, It will not happen. Sure, It will Burn like heck but it won't go boom, because fuel in itself does not explode, but the VAPOR does.

^THIS....

that is something i was also thinking, tho mostly because the fuel tank explosion happens pretty frequently and 'early' in the plane's progression of damage... usually i get coolant punctures with the first couple seconds worth of bullet strikes... its in the next seconds worth that usually triggers the explosion...

unless im fairly accurate at hitting the cockpit area of the fuselage (which im most likely not ) then the total destruction of the fuel tank is definitely too easy to damage.

One other thing... If the tank does explode wouldnt the force of the explosion sever some if not all control cables? Im pretty certain that it would cut the cables goin back into the tail section (rudder and elevators). because right now other thank looking pretty, it has no secondary consequence

[trademe900]

No it wouldn't. A fuel tank being set alight would just burn. This is well documented. Seldom would there be the right conditions for an explosion to cause the aircraft to disintegrate instantly. Disintegration would happen after a period of time. An aircraft will burn for a surprisingly long time before it falls apart, especially a big bomber flying level and straight, not under the huge stress from evasive maneuvers that fighters might be under. As 41sqdrn mentioned, a very rare event.

The damage model is completely porked right now in regards to bomber fuel tanks, especially on the he111, ju88 and blenheim. The do17z seems very believable though, but having said that the do17z was the strongest wing design of the bombers.

The Do17s are very easy to down so I also have some doubts about this DM.

[trademe900]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

The Do17s are very easy to down so I also have some doubts about this DM.

They are easy to down but I believe that problem is to do with the AI. They seem to abort the aircraft very early. However, the do17z does not have the silly hollywood explosions.