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

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by proton45

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

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

[ImMoreBetter]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.