PDA

View Full Version : BF109 - Damage model !!!



XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 11:36 AM
Please what you are think about damage model of BF109 ?

I think it is wery easy to shot him down with small cal. only...

I have some practice with K4 vs LaGG 3 41year...


Everybody who love BF 109 please send bug report to oleg .. we need repair BF 109 damage model !


CSL_KYZA

PS: Sory for my english http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 11:36 AM
Please what you are think about damage model of BF109 ?

I think it is wery easy to shot him down with small cal. only...

I have some practice with K4 vs LaGG 3 41year...


Everybody who love BF 109 please send bug report to oleg .. we need repair BF 109 damage model !


CSL_KYZA

PS: Sory for my english http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 11:45 AM
I find 109 very easy to shoot down in 1.1b too.

But 190s that's really another story..

312_Lazy
312. (Czechoslovak) Sq. RAF
http://312.jinak.cz

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 01:32 PM
S!

Somone here once said the P47 is made os Glass, then Bf109 is made of paper...

<O_

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 01:40 PM
Please dont send "bug reports" that say "109 to easy to shot down" and think that if hundred people send that, the 109 will become thougher.

You'll need more data.

Fact is the early 109s where only lightly armored around the canopy. Most of the rear, the wings, the engine and cooler, had little armor. Nothing to stop a small caliber MG from messing up your day.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 01:55 PM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- Please dont send "bug reports" that say "109 to easy
- to shot down" and think that if hundred people send
- that, the 109 will become thougher.
-
- You'll need more data.
-
- Fact is the early 109s where only lightly armored
- around the canopy. Most of the rear, the wings, the
- engine and cooler, had little armor. Nothing to stop
- a small caliber MG from messing up your day.


Really? Tell me one VVS or USAAF fighter (except P-47) that had more armor than Bf-109.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 03:06 PM
I find it a complete joke. Elevator/aileron damage happens so often and not with hundreds of rounds, almost any hit however small will do damage.... I could accept damage to the ailerons when hit in the wing but that should happen to lots of planes... When you hit the 109 aft, if the rounds penetrate the fuselage it's almost sure the controls will be damaged... I think I have a picture of the inside of the fuselage at a factory... Will try to find it. I think it shows the cables in there....

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 03:10 PM
It does seem that any hits will damage controls. Unlike IL2. Bug??

http://www.stormbirds.com/warbirds/header.jpg


<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 03:30 PM
I agree that the controls on the Bf109 can be damaged much too easily - it's a bit like the 'tail kills' situation that existed in European Air War before it was patched. All you have to do in FB is shoot at a Bf109's tail and it is very often rendered useless. I'm not sure why it's control cables are so much thicker than any other aircraft in the sim...

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 03:31 PM
What exactly are you talking about?

Here's a website from Luthier (the same guy who organized IL-2center.com) with a translation of a russian pilot manual from that era.

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsI.htm


This is the armor placement on a 109F

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsI_files/Me109%20Armor-01.jpg


Russian manual bluntly states:

"The armor is extremely ineffective against armor-piercing ammunition, and should not be taken into consideration."

Does that sound like good armor to you?

Russian planes also weren't armored all that greatly, but what has this got to do with the 109F damage model?

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 04:01 PM
You said:
- Fact is the early 109s where only lightly armored
- around the canopy. Most of the rear, the wings, the
- engine and cooler, had little armor. Nothing to stop
- a small caliber MG from messing up your day.

Well fact is that small caliber MG was found to be ineffective against F series armor (this is the armament it faced).

Also by saying that it can be inferred that other fighters had better armor protection. I asked you to give such examples together with weight or dimensions of their armor for comparison.
Otherways you just made a baseless claim.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 04:02 PM
This is not the first time I hear that many things were different from the original game.I do not have it so I can't comment. However, for those who have it, why so you think such changes were made? Especially when something is ok for everybody, no need to change it. Yet it seems that's all we see here, changes here and there.. Was it like that with the original?

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 04:07 PM
I dont wanna hear like a troll but I too would like to hear some differences what makes the difference example when one compares Bf109F to Yak1 .

They both were light fighter but still they behave very differently when it comes to damage in FB.

Especially the control cables in Bf109 seems remarkably easy to destroy.

Would the construct material really make such a difference since the armour on both planes is small?

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 04:09 PM
S!
I think tahts real, 109 was a bit weak, yes, but 190 was really a strong plane... so this is waht we ever asked for!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

]http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/newbo.gif (http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/newbo.gif[/img)

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 04:13 PM
Please note that one of the important MG disavantages when compared with cannons was their ineffectiveness in disabling the controls! So only those that pack a lot of rounds could damage the controls (here it doesn't matter the calliber) like Hurricanes and P-47. Otherways only planes fitted with cannons could damage the controls. The damage from MG to the controls that we have now is way overdone (though better after patch).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:15 PM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- What exactly are you talking about?
-
- Here's a website from Luthier (the same guy who
- organized IL-2center.com) with a translation of a
- russian pilot manual from that era.
-
- <a
- href="http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsI.htm"
- target=_blank>http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTac
- ticsI.htm</a>
-
-
-
- This is the armor placement on a 109F
-
<img
- src="http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsI_fil
- es/Me109%20Armor-01.jpg">
-
-
- Russian manual bluntly states:
-
- "The armor is extremely ineffective against
- armor-piercing ammunition, and should not be taken
- into consideration."
-
- Does that sound like good armor to you?
-
- Russian planes also weren't armored all that
- greatly, but what has this got to do with the 109F
- damage model?
-
-

Err, reading this text, I saw that the Me109G-2 loadout is different from the one in the game! It says 1 MG, and 3 MG151/20! The wing cannons he refers to are gunpods or are they incorporated in the wing, like the oerklion in the Bf109-E?



http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 07:39 PM
I don't think there is anything majorly wrong with the 109s damage model.

The damage any plane in the game takes varies.

I was just playtesting a USAAF vs Hungary mission tonight, and I spent some time checking the 109s damage model out.

Several times I took a P47 right up a 109G-10s tailpipe and found that the G10, at least, can take a quite amazing amount of 50 cal up its bottom. Deflection shots produce different results, but on one notable occasion, a G-10 took literally half a D-22 Overload's ammo in the tailpipe. Convergence was set to 350 inner/150 outer, and I got a massive long burst on a 109 that was flying straight and level from about 160 metres away. For a lot of the firing run the 4x right side .50s were going straight into the tail and the 4x left side were going into the G-10s left wing. The tail 'cranked' after a few seconds and started training smoke, but it just wouldn't burn or fall off. I don't think there are too many things on the face of the planet that would fly too well after taking a good ~20 sec burst from 8 .50's, dead 6 shot or not.

It would not surprise me at all to find that there are bugs in the damage models for a number of the planes in FB, but for every few instant 109 engine pop shots, there are also going to be a few that just don't want to die no matter what. Which I think is fine, weird stuff happens in war :>

Flying from the opposite side I didn't really have too many problems dealing with Vet/Ace AI P-51s or 47s - as long as you can survive the merge you're usually going to be OK. The MK108 is seriously deadly in FB 1.01b, and I found I could usually take down more 51s or 47s with the MK108 than I could 190s/109s with the 47, even with the D27/Overload setting.

The 109 was never regarded as an amazingly tough aeroplane - cheap, powerful, dangerous if flown by a competant pilot, but not, as far as I know, reknown for being super tough. If you're having problems being taken out, by small cal ammo or not, you're not using the 109s power/vertical agility properly. When you're flying the 109, the idea is not to put yourself in front of bullets in the first place. You should never have an enemy plane on your tail and in firing range to start with - climb away or dive out, and wait a minute or two for a better opportunity.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 08:00 PM
One thing that bugs me is that even smallest vvs calibre can kill Me109 engine.


Other than that I don`t remember when was the last time someone killed me(PK).

The plane`s fast and nimble and it`s durability seems ok to me.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:18 AM
The 109 is now a paper airplane. One burst will cripple of kill it. Always control surfaces too. I think the damage model has swung too far the other way. Too easy to get kills. It was fine before. At least you could fly a damaged 109 home. Now its "hit the silk!!" Hope this gets fixed or modified in the final patch.

http://www.stormbirds.com/warbirds/header.jpg


<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 06:13 AM
I just finished a QMB between a Bf-109F4(my favorite of the series)vs. two La-5s. I took a few hits,but nothing that really damaged me. I dispatched those Russkies fairly easily. I probably don't fly the 109 as much as you guys,but on the occasions I do,I haven't noticed the rampant damage inaccuracies that is being claimed.

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 10:49 AM
I too think the 109's damage model is to weak, the yak 3 should be roughly the same but dosn't seem to loose controls or an engine anywhere near as easily as 109. Hope oleg fixes this......

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 11:52 AM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- What exactly are you talking about?
-
- Here's a website from Luthier (the same guy who
- organized IL-2center.com) with a translation of a
- russian pilot manual from that era.
-

Nowi, do you know the meaning of the word "PROPAGANDA" ?

The manual Luthier chose to translate is a well known source from the WW2 era, and every contemporary russian historian will tell you that its not a reliable source... here is the link to site were a russian hisortorian comments exactly on this manual :

http://www.airwar.ru/history/av2ww/soviet/taktik/taktik.html

if you don't know russian, please ask luthier to translate it and post it in his website

You can see that most of the data there are wrong and that the purpose of this manual is to convince the young soviet pilots that tacticts is more important in aerial battles, thus assuming that soviet planes are inferior.

"Our newer fighters have better climb rate than Me-109G above 4,000 meters; several types climb better at all altitudes." , ONLY THIS SENTENCE SHOULD PROVE YOU THAT THIS MANUAL IS ABSOLUTELY A PROPAGANDA STUFF....

the manual was written in 42
Please show me a single soviet plane that was able to outclimb Bf-109G2 (4,4min to 5000m according to soviet tests of captured aircraft)... even the late war La-7 and Yak-9U have camparable climb times, and they appeared in late 44...

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 12:26 PM
In pre-patch era, A Hurri with 12 .303s was very dangerous QMB nemesis, as even a single hit from head on would damage the engine and splat the oil on windshield. This happened regardless of round caliber, s single ping at the merge and that was it.

Is this gone now ?

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 12:57 PM
As for the damage of small calbre waepaons.

During BoB countless R.A.F. pilots complained on the weak performance of the 0.303 guns.
They, on several occasions, lamented that although they hit the planes, they couldn't do enough damage. they also complained that although they could outturn the Emils they couldn't take much punishment as the 20mm cannons of the 109 meant instant kill (now i wont comment on this, but I like the DM now.. no need for MEAG-20mm... but let's go on).

For this reasons the brits started to develop the 20mm hispano cannon (which was very faulty as it tended to jam OFTEN, even in critical circumstances and leaving pilots with one or NO cannon at all after afew shots).

On the other side, quite a lot of german planes (bombers AND fighters) returned home being peppered by 0.303 guns.

We're talking of emils here....

Now I don't know how reliable this source was but two facts remain.

1) brits feared 20mm
2) brits started developing 20mm cannons for the spitfire and hurricane

and I think it's not a coincidence that russians developed 20mm guns eh ?

which leads to the conclusion:
Why fix soemthing if it doesn't need fixing.
So it seems that these small calibre weapons were NOT ENOUGH to kill a bird like this. Which leads to the assumption that the killrates couldn't be that high.

I hadn't enough time to test this in the game in 1.1 since I am flying the 190 now which is somewaht more sturdy *grin
but I will test this today.
I have no probs if the bird get chewd up by 20mm cannons or 13mm cannons (0.50..) but as soon I start killing 109s of late design with smaller ammunition I'd say "take a look" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 02:57 PM
Face it the BF-109 was a fragile plane and needed to stay out of gunfire!! It was the German Zero!! The rear was lightly armored and the only heavay armor was by the pilot in the back. The nose was thinned and the armor in the front was not as thick as the armor in back, which could only stop some small caliber mg's, not all of them. After a few seconds of fire, the armor would wear out. This is true with most planes. however, most planes had heavier armor. Especially the P-47 and the F6F and F4F.
.303's were very small caliber mg's but enough of them would eventually poke through the armor. A lot of 109's were shot in the nose, this lightly skinned area wasnt' a tough target and was easy to puncture even by .303's. A few hits to critical parts of the engine was all it needed. I still think that the .50's are modeled correctly now and that they do the damage they should. You have to remember that they're only MG's and they don't damage like cannons, you have to get enough bullets into one area, that's why convergence is important. The Hurri's .303's are numerous and spit hundreds of bullets per second. All hundreds of those bullets, even if .303's, are definitly going to pierce something. Especially if the pilot shot from the correct convergence distance. Take a look at this:

"What I also like is the last paragraph where it says he made the German Ace disengage and return home after damaging his wingman. It shows clearly that German Aces did not get their kills by engaging into dogfights but by hit'n'run attacks. In this occasion the German Ace did not risk getting shot but chose to return home safely after unsuccessfull suprise attack.

Many people whine about how they get killed easily in their 109's and think the 109 is undermodelled and, I think, this history example shows why."

That was from the GD forum

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

http://www.escadrila54.com/logo_sm.jpg

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>



Message Edited on 08/21/0310:06AM by Boosher-PBNA

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 03:31 PM
fact is during the BoB Messerschmitts would often return home with many bullet holes in some cases with more than 200 HOLES that is very fragile , isn`t it? That were rare cases, yet, It does clearly say that Messerschmitts did not die from a couple of hits. and also, how is it possible that a more lightweight Yak is far more durable and damage-absorbing. And pls dont serve me the learn-to-shoot BS.

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:12 PM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- Face it the BF-109 was a fragile plane and needed to
- stay out of gunfire!! It was the German Zero!! The
- rear was lightly armored and the only heavay armor
- was by the pilot in the back. The nose was thinned
- and the armor in the front was not as thick as the
- armor in back, which could only stop some small
- caliber mg's, not all of them. After a few seconds
- of fire, the armor would wear out. This is true with
- most planes. however, most planes had heavier armor.
- Especially the P-47 and the F6F and F4F.


How much armor did those planes had? Post the numbers.


- .303's were very small caliber mg's but enough of
- them would eventually poke through the armor.

What a pile of crap! Post data Boosher not your personal and unfounded oppinion. British tests revealed that .303 AP rounds were useless against early Bf-109 armor regardless of distance. Look for data and spare us of your oppinions!



- A lot of 109's were shot in the nose, this lightly skinned
- area wasnt' a tough target and was easy to puncture
- even by .303's. A few hits to critical parts of the
- engine was all it needed. I still think that the
- .50's are modeled correctly now and that they do the
- damage they should.

A few MG hits in critical parts are enough for any plane, P-47 included.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:14 PM
one more thing on the "rather returned, than engage". Never forget that the Fighter covers during BoB had only enough fuel to be 20 minutes OVER target. So take this into account when citing BoB stuf and why the planes rather returned. Besides, every SANE pilot would disenageg and head home when he knows that his wingman is damaged and oyu wont possibly win the day with 1.5 planes vs. 2 or more....

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:34 PM
Some of you here need to read the BCRS books. Many a 109 was forced down after taking hits in the engine. While not all of these damaged planes were total losses, it underscored the fact that the 109's engine WAS highly susceptible to battle damage.

I/JG54^Lukas
He 162A-2 Cockpit Modeler

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:48 PM
Huckebein_FW, if the .303 ammo was totally useless then how come most kills during BoB were made by the Hurricanes?

Note: It's just a question.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:50 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- Huckebein_FW, if the .303 ammo was totally useless
- then how come most kills during BoB were made by the
- Hurricanes?


Read again Cappa: totally useless against armor.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:51 PM
JG54_Lukas wrote:
- Some of you here need to read the BCRS books. Many a
- 109 was forced down after taking hits in the engine.
- While not all of these damaged planes were total
- losses, it underscored the fact that the 109's
- engine WAS highly susceptible to battle damage.


And which inline engine could take hits??


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:54 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Cappadocian_317 wrote:
-- Huckebein_FW, if the .303 ammo was totally useless
-- then how come most kills during BoB were made by the
-- Hurricanes?
-
-
- Read again Cappa: totally useless against armor.

Ok, so what parts of the 109 were so well armored then?
All I heard so far was that it had an armored plate behind the pilot.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 05:01 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Cappadocian_317 wrote:
--- Huckebein_FW, if the .303 ammo was totally useless
--- then how come most kills during BoB were made by the
--- Hurricanes?
--
--
-- Read again Cappa: totally useless against armor.
-
- Ok, so what parts of the 109 were so well armored
- then?
- All I heard so far was that it had an armored plate
- behind the pilot.

And thick armored glass in front of the pilot. Also fuel tank was protected by armor. Do you know one Allied fighter that uses more armor than Bf109 (except P-47, which by the way it has more armor only because it has larger parts to protect, actually there are less elements protected by armor in a P-47 than in Bf-109).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/21/0311:09AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 05:13 PM
All I can say is: In his first flight, the future No1 ace Kozhedub was intercepted by a pair of Me109G, was hit in the backarmor and got to think, "thanks god it was no armorpiercing..."

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 05:28 PM
Bf-109´s were anything but flying tanks, but not exactly fragile either.

Taken from the Aircraft Evaluation Report Messerschmitt 109-F, Air Documents Division 7-2 AMC Wright Field.

"Armor and Fuel tanks.

Protection for the pilot´s body is provided by plates immediately behind the seat: the upper 1 1/2 feet are 8mm thick and the remainder is 4 mm. The pilot´s head and shoulders are protected by a curved piece of armor 10 mm thick attached to the cockpit inclosure. A section of bullet resitsant glass 2 1/4 inches thick is mounted on the windshield directly in front of the pilot.

http://www.airventure.de/laatzen02/scheibe.jpg

On the left, part of the pilots armor plate of a Bf-109, to the right, sections of bullet resistant glass as attached to the windshield in front of the pilot.

Additional armor has been found on "109-F" airplanes recently inspected. this is in the form of a laminated dural bulkhead placed approximately 6 inches behind the fuel tank. Total thickness of the thirty laminations used is about 7/8 inches.

The british have carried out tests on one of these bulkheads with the following results: from 100 yards range dead astern, .303 inch and .5 inch incendiary ammuntion will not penetrate the dural bulkhead. At this range 20 mm HE/I (high explosive incendiary) is still effective for penetrating the bulkhead and igniting the tank. At 200 yards range, the effect of the interposition of the dural bulkhead is that at 5 degrees off dead astern .303 A.P. (armor piercing) is completely ineffective against the pilot, but .5 A.P. in about 30 percent of cases will pass through the bulkhead and will penetrate the 8 mm pilot´s armor, even if it has to pass through the tank below fuel level. Twenty mm A.P. will still be effective in penetrating the pilot´s armor.

Subsequent tests reveal that U.S. .50cal M1 incendiary ammuntion is capable of penetrating the dural bulkhead effectively. "

============================
When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.



Message Edited on 08/23/0310:10PM by Oak_Groove

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 05:34 PM
how about the Russian and western aircraft pilot armor? Anyone know something?

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:56 PM
Ankanor wrote:
- how about the Russian and western aircraft pilot
- armor? Anyone know something?

The Tempest had 6mm pilot rear, and 9mm head armor. That`s all, +armored glass, and that`s not much.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:38 PM
Excellent posts Nowi, TipoMan, and especially Oak_Groove. Stef51, the diagrams of the 109E control system I've found at this site:

http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html

show control rods, not cables. This should be more resistant to damage (at least small caliber rounds.)
Anybody else got any damage data? I had thought this stuff would be impossible to find. Glad to see I'm wrong.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:03 PM
stef51 wrote:
- I find it a complete joke. Elevator/aileron damage
- happens so often and not with hundreds of rounds,
- almost any hit however small will do damage

I do too. Generally speaking a 109 in FB won't survive a few rounds from a bomber rear gunner shot even 500m away. Either your motor is damaged, or your controls, or there's an oil leak and you can see nothing ahead. Compare this with the FW190 and you feel these planes don't belong to the same age (i like this screenshot of mine where you can see a FW190 still flying well with a 30mm round from a P39 right in front of the cokcpit lol).

That's ridiculous. That makes the 109 a flying coffin (unless you are so bright a pilot no bullet ever hits you).

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 11:54 AM
Very good my friend, excellent stuffs... Correct me if I 'm wrong but it would seem that the whole elevator control system is mostly located near the bottom of the fuselage. If so, then any hits at the center and above of the fuselage would make it impossible to hit the controls..?

In any case, I find it good datas to explore... I'm not into much as to if the controls can resist ammos as to the probability those controls can be hit... Looking at the schematic, it should be a fairly low percentage; again assuming that few ammos enter the fuselage... It's important to remmember that the whole point is damage from a few rounds. If you get pounded for 10 seconds by a hurricane, there's no point whinning about lost controls... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 11:59 AM
There is no way someone could convince me the damage model is as it should be... I get just a few rounds while evading and very rarely my controls are intact... I got a few rounds from an I-153 at 700 meters and the very first hit my controls were hit.... Taking off again, this time an La got me at .93 and again the first hit my elevator is gone. My brother got elevators and ailerons shot down in 2 109s in less than 5 minutes...

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 12:54 PM
stef51 wrote:
- There is no way someone could convince me the damage
- model is as it should be... I get just a few rounds
- while evading and very rarely my controls are
- intact... I got a few rounds from an I-153 at 700
- meters and the very first hit my controls were
- hit.... Taking off again, this time an La got me at
- .93 and again the first hit my elevator is gone. My
- brother got elevators and ailerons shot down in 2
- 109s in less than 5 minutes...
-
- Stef

It's not only with your precious 109, other planes have the same "problem".
In the Hurricane I lost my controls so many times I cannot even remember how many times.
At least in 95% of the sorties I flew with it I lost at least one of my controls.
It's nearly the same for all planes.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 02:24 PM
Humm I think the damage model of Yaks and 109s is about right in FB 1.1B now.. but it certainly was not in 1.0.. 1.0 was a joke, when it came to damage model of Yaks and LAs compared to 109.. one hit to 109 and controls dead.. Not so easily in FB 1.1.. and Yaks also weaker, like they should be.. so everything is fine, nothing to see here. Only thing I hate about 109 is the tendency of Oil in the cockpit glass.. and only 109 (and partly P-47) only planes for suffering this oil-problem.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif and some planes have more simple damage model, it seems.. such as Lagg 41- and 43-models..never engine dead, never controls destroyed, never oil in the cockpit.. these things should be implemented to every plane imho..not just the IL-2 and BF-109s (IL-2s are really vulnerable to loose controls)...


Message Edited on 08/24/0303:31PM by Vipez-

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 08:00 PM
The thing is, I rarely get engine/oil damage. Most are control damages... Maybe because I get hit only from the rear...

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 08:17 PM
I would not be surprised that the 109 is among the most vulnerable... Unfortunately we don't seem to have enough infos from people about what they think of the damage model... Of course I don't fly all the plane so I can't make comments like that but I'd be nice to hear what others think about the planes they fly most. For example, I rarely see people talking about the Hurricane damage model, just the flight model... This could indicate that they are satisfied with the damage model, yet, the model might be bad too... Overall, if you get control damages from a few rounds all the time, something's wrong...

Also, is it me or the hurricane's .303 guns are almost useless now? Seems like I fired for eternity at a Ms406, plenty of hit everywhere, no indication of lost control, no smoke out despite the fact that I clearly saw hits on the engines.... Seemed that 1.0 had better damage power...


Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 09:45 PM
I have no problems gunning down the Ms406 with the .303 guns.
You need to fire from close range and not from the dead six position but from an angle.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:33 PM
ok, I've tested it. Still testing with convergence though...

Thanks

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:55 PM
Armor and damage----

Pilot protection is a good measure of PK's from certain directions. I don't see loads of complaints of 7mm class MG's getting PK's on 109's.

I fail to see how that armor applies to the whole plane or to controls. The frequency of controls damage seems to be a real issue.

As for tearing wings or fuselages apart, wouldn't frame and skin strength (for lack of a better word, it escapes me) have more to do with that? I'd expect the 109 to be lighter in those categories than some planes with 109G's being much sturdier than E's or F's and FW190's being able to take more of a beating than any 109.

Maybe all planes have weak spots and some easier to get at if I read right... these discussions should specify strengths from weaknesses from overall structures perhaps so that one person isn't arguing a completely different thing than another and neither knowing the difference. I've seen that often enough here.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 01:33 PM
stef51 wrote:
- ok, I've tested it. Still testing with convergence
- though...
-
- Thanks
-
- Stef

Mine is set to 200 meters.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:35 PM
Yep, I'm testing between 150 amd 200. Makes a difference though Pe-2s seem to handle those .303 really well even at close range...


Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:45 PM
The Heinkel 111 can also soak up those .303 rounds pretty well.
On the other hand the Ju88 turns into a flaming boomerang in no time.
I have the feeling it should be the other way around.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:53 PM
Well it's obvious that a lot of discussions involve the words "should", "too much" etc... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif That is why I try to do my best during arguments. In this thread, I don't want to get involved in armor strength of any kind. All I can offer is some kind of logical probability that if you get a few rounds in the fuselage, why do controls almost always break? Again, it's not hundreds of rounds, just a few... I can only check inside pictures of the 109 fuselage and imagine a few rounds penetrating inside... After that, what should be the percentage? I have no idea... Seems in the game that it's 80% or more... Maybe it should be 50...

I realise that it is extremely difficult for the programmers to create a damage model. If you do not have a way to verify some kind of data, then you have to use your best guess. Unless we can get damage location reports from German repair shops, we'll never have the real deal though at this point, it's what everyone agrees on that matter that counts...

Unfortunately not very much valid but if you go there...

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sbmel/Damage_report.jpg


This is a 1 year report from the Pacific (meaning generally big, radial engine planes)... Basically, over 1 year, they included 501 planes and 27 of them got hit to the controls surfaces with 0 aircraft loss... Again whatever that means, cables or much more? Food for thought for those who love those kind of reports....

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:59 PM
I fly the He-111 a lot on line and often I wonder how I can still fly. Sure, most of my men are dead but I once managed to come back with one engine and elevator damaged, plus holes everywhere, almost half of my cockpit panels out etc... And that comes from yaks to La, etc...


Stef