PDA

View Full Version : Windshield/screen/canopy OILING.......



LEBillfish
11-12-2005, 07:56 AM
Hi All;

This feature I must admit I've been more then a little miffed at for some time. We all know it, on certain planes when the engine takes a single bullet hit the windscreen "soots" up and makes visibility impossible.

Now I actually like the aspect of the smoke MAKING you leave the fight.......Yet frankly "I believe" it is all wrong in how it's done. So before I go petitioning 1c for something else that will be forgotten, lets get your annecdotal opinions from texts you've read.

What I base my comments on are as follows......Aircraft design, airflow, canopy design, common sense.......

Though we have this happen on some aircraft, we don't on others.....Notorious for the condition is the BF109, yet new players to the sim have been the Ki-61, and of late and even more rediculous the Ki-43 (would like to know what others do this)............In ALL cases, frankly I find the condition rediculous in presentation. First off, what we see is more like soot not oil. Oil obviously a liquid and in its WORST state (burned, old, unmaintained) is still if able to move around exactly that, a liquid.

Now I myself have been in a car (Plymouth Duster) where some moron who thought he'd "look" kewl to have all his gauges outside in front of the driver....Naturally looks and practice two different things as he never maintained the engine letting the oil work to one step short of sludge...Well it just so happens one day knucklehead gets a free blower and manifold, and after removing the hood hooks it up to the engine and trying to impress the neighbor bimbo (me) in Knoxville tears off down the highway. Unfortunately a 671 supercharger designed to run on a 7:1 compression ratio engine doesn't do well on a 9-10:1.....Roughly a few seconds into the run *KaBOOM*...and a head gasket gets blown while the intake manifold unseats with all the associated fire and smoke you can imagine.......Also, the oversized oil line to the gauge gets ripped off......

Result?....Tons of smoke as oil and fuel burn on the engine pouring over the headers washing over the winshield, soot from the burn, and 5 quarts of unchanged filthy black oil spewed over the virtually FLAT windshield at 70 m.p.h......Consider now there is no hood, and that the engine is inches from the windshield. Though oil, soot & smoke covered it, it looked not a 1/10th as bad as our planes here.

Now, consider the engines here are normally seperated from the windscreen by roughly 2+' due to the guns. In kind consider in the case of the Ki-61 (not 109) the canopy/windscreen is rather rounded and heavily sloped......Also consider the design of the cowling (was not some loose piece of sheet metal)....Lastly how the engine compartment was cooled and vented. Know as well the oil resivior was INSIDE the cockpit below the gauges/dash and had to be fitted for the pilots legs to fit.

Now consider the speed and wind generated outside plus prop gust..........Sorry, it is just a flat out impossibility to get the "soot" effect we have here on the Ki-61, also likely the BF109, and more so the Ki-43.

More so, where does coal black soot come from?....It's certainly not oil as oil would be driven off the sloped glass by the wind.

Now a "blackout" type of effect for smoke in the cockpit I'd buy (though not on the Ki-61 or 43 due to its design if an engine hit)....More so, heavy black smoke like how it looks when we're close in trailing a black smoking enemy on the exterior even more so.......

Yet I find the sooting up of the windscreen simply rediculous as the planes "I know" of it happens to (Ki-61/43) it is simply an impossibility due to the design.

Opinions, what have you read, what planes do it here?

-HH-Quazi
11-12-2005, 08:43 AM
Agreed! Great post and something I haven't really put any thought into. It would be great to have liquid acting as a liquid and beeding up, rolling or smearing across the canopy. And maybe the abilty to have smoke billowing up inside the cockpit. Might be a bit much to ask for. I don't know the limitations of this PC game engine, or BoB's for that matter. But, wouldn't this type of effect just put an exclamation mark on immersiveness. Wow!

LEBillfish
11-12-2005, 09:02 AM
Well I at this point just want the "silly soot" gone.

FoolTrottel
11-12-2005, 09:12 AM
Yes, it's a weird effect. As it is now, I could do without it.
Me thinks it's been modelled in the plane's damage-model... so there's no animation into it.

So it won't be easily changed I think.

(Hm, in fact, I'm just guessing a bit, but it would explain why only some planes have it, and not all...)

Have fun!

p1ngu666
11-12-2005, 10:08 AM
the oil in 109 isnt that bad, compaired to newer planes...

and irl from what ive seen it would cover the canopy pretty much entirely...

LEBillfish
11-12-2005, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
Yes, it's a weird effect. As it is now, I could do without it.
Me thinks it's been modelled in the plane's damage-model... so there's no animation into it.

So it won't be easily changed I think.

(Hm, in fact, I'm just guessing a bit, but it would explain why only some planes have it, and not all...)

Have fun!

Well I'd guess since they just added it to the Ki-43, they could take it off, same with most simply delete that aspect of the effect.

Frankly too I'm a little miffed at the overall DM after the patch of the Ki-61 & 43 especially with engines as they "seem" to be siezing up instantly too easily, and naturally we have the flying gas can effect of the zero's attributed to them now.....

1 hit anywhere and boom, dead engine, oiled windscreen, fuel pissing everywhere, and fireball........Guess my post as to errors with the Ki-61 was taken as errors to the opposite....As they made the problems I pointed out worse (or so it seems having no first hand knowledge if they worked with the DM).


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the oil in 109 isnt that bad, compaired to newer planes...

and irl from what ive seen it would cover the canopy pretty much entirely...

Oil.....translucent liquid that would move off

not Soot.....opaque grime that stays put.

chris455
11-12-2005, 10:35 AM
Hmmm............
Why then do we so often see white tape applied to F4U Corsairs that were put there by pilots trying to keep fuel from the fuel tank forward of the canopy from collecting on their windscreen and obscuring their vision? And this being "clear" fuel, not dirty engine oil.

Must have been able to cause considerable loss of forward vision, else why bother?

I know that fuel from a leaking tank and oil from a sick engine are two different things, but if Billfish's argument is valid, there should have been no need for the tape.

Yet it is evident in dozens of photographs.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't mind the effect being reduced somewhat (say, so one could still aim!) but I'm not so sure it's presence in the DM doesn't have some validity.

In any case, good post BF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BigA21
11-12-2005, 12:04 PM
Hi BillFish,
Your thoughts on this seem very well considered. I am not a warbird pilot, but here are my thoughts.

"Lastly how the engine compartment was cooled and vented. Know as well the oil resivior was INSIDE the cockpit below the gauges/dash and had to be fitted for the pilots legs to fit."

The location of the oil res. is irrelavant as there are one (Or more) pumps scavenging and pressurizing / moving the nasty HOT stuff through the ENTIRE oil system. Even on a deathtrap design with oil tank between pilot legs, most if not all of the pressurized circuit would remain firewall forward where it is needed... just waiting to spoil the day.

"More so, where does coal black soot come from?...."

Of course the by product of combustion, right? Whether it was fire, an engine fuel air mixture suddenly improper due to enemy gun damaged components, crankcase oil leaking out God only knows what new hole provided by the enemy. Aircraft engine oil, though hopefully replaced on a more stringent schedule than its automotive counterpart, I assure you looks every bit as black after it has been in service. Combustion byproducts leaking past the rings (ie. CARBON), atmospheric particles, dirt, etc. are the main contributors to the black soot choice of color.

"It's certainly not oil, as oil would be driven off the sloped glass by the wind."

I am not sure this would be the case as I witness just rain/ water vapor droplets on aircraft windshields in flight moving slower than this mouse cursor. There is a tremendous hi pressure - not neccessarily velocity on a windshield's surface. I think this unseen condition prevents even water from just rolling off.

So as far as:

"Oil.....translucent liquid that would move off"

The oil keeping that fine piece of German engineering happy at altitude ain't the same looking as the new, translucent stuff they pour in all our cars every 3000 miles at Jiffy Lube, and I remain to be convinced that any liquid has the strong tendancy to just "Move off".

"....More so, heavy black smoke like how it looks when we're close in trailing a black smoking enemy on the exterior even more so......."

I am figuring that since smoke, especially the "Heavy black" kind is composed of particles and hot gases, and initially VERY HOT ones at that, that those particles bonding to the windshield in combination with leaking dirty engine fluids is what this sim attempts to model.
So the smoke particles are HOT, the oil is HOT, possible leaking exhaust gases are HOT.
I suspect, but am not by any means certain, that WW2 aircraft armored windshields were constructed of acylic - or layers of acrylic and glass. That is why I mention HOT above - as one could sprinkle a pepper shaker on a hot piece of acylic and not be able so see through it let alone remove the spice particles from the cooled plastic at the crash sight and still have a servicable ws thickness.

As far as avgas (Chris455) and acrylic with heat I would think that would create a nice new gooey polymer in itself with transparency and strength yet to be determined.

Maybe the Chimp could provide some info on the composition of these aircraft windshields.

In BoB (With the latest TIR version 25 by then) we should be able to stick our heads out the window anyway to gain SA and put her safely on the ground - but your frustrations are understood here as its all we got.

Until then I'll be the guy out in front trailing that heavy black smoke.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

polak5
11-12-2005, 12:59 PM
I propose a windshield wiper http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anyway, i dont think this problem will be fixed in this installment... But brings a great subject to the table for the next BOB.

horseback
11-12-2005, 06:32 PM
The 'sooty windshield' graphic has been with us from the beginning in Il-2, and I have always hated it. Most of the time, in my experience, it was the result of an impossibly accurate shot by a rear-seat ai gunner from an unrealistic distance.

I've always felt that this sort of thing was horsesh*t (and I know horsesh*t when I see it). However, what I don't KNOW is that it is intended to specifically depict an 'oil leak.'

Oil, even clean, clear oil, causes some pretty complex refractions, which make it hard to see through in all but perfect light and conditions, which is emphatically not the case for an aircraft in flight (or even, in my case, stuck going south on I-5 behind the joker with Baja plates). Water is pretty clear too, but I'll bet that even a soul as doughty and fearless as our buddy chris455 has, and uses, windshield wipers on his car when it rains.

The demands on your graphics processor for the constant animation of an oily or even rainspattered windshield would probably be beyond the capability of the average PC, coupled with the rest of the demands the game makes.

Rather than oil on the windscreen, I've always considered it a result of a flash fire under the hood. That would make for burn marks that don't move, and lets me know that all was not right in the engine compartment. The inability to see is just sort of a bonus.

It's a graphic indication that something is wrong, just as the wind whooshing sound is an audible cue that you're on the edge of a stall, or the bullet holes suddenly appearing in your canopy tell you that the aircraft behind you is not your wingman...

We could petition for a different graphic signal to tell us that our engine has only a few minutes left, and I'm sure that something (or several somethings) is in the works for BoB, but I suspect that this is what we have, and what we're going to have, for the life of this sim.

cheers

horseback

jds1978
11-12-2005, 07:44 PM
Good post LEB

call me a masochist, but i like the effect.
the P40 "engine puke" is very nasty

LEBillfish
11-12-2005, 08:01 PM
Well I guess I need to restate what I said above.......

I "have" been in a car that had its window "covered" in black, old, unchanged oil....smoke from burning oil, fuel and coolant....from an engine "right next" to the windshield, and that slowed from 70-0 as the oil pump basically drained the case onto it.

It was not as "opaque" or view obstructive as ours after the first few seconds while slowing.

Now in contrast if we say consider a Ki-61 engine......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/GunsDwg2.jpg

The engine itself is roughly 30" from it's rear to the front of the windscreen. The space between dedicated to guns, ammunition, and some electrical lines for gauges. Fuel, oil, coolant lines pass below, some even out in transition pieces between the wings and fusalage. So essentially double firewalled and packed in between.

The engine is surrounded by double to triple wall unibody type construction on the sides, solid with no venting. The cover over the engine is double thick rivited construction for rigidity of the structure and fits flush and tight to the sides to add support witn NO vents. The bottom cover again is made rigid to add support...HOWEVER it does have venting louvers below the plane feeding out under the wing.

A hit ANYWHERE to the engine would through normal flow want to vent out through the bottom. Any pressurized lines hit would be relatively low and would require a hit through the top cover with a perfect spray out that hole of whatever the fluid. In kind traveling at even a low 200km/h would shed the fluid off the radically sloped windscreen. Prop blast alone doing most the work let alone basic airflow around the needle like fusalage.

Sorry, I simply still don't see it.

chris455
11-12-2005, 10:01 PM
Billfish,
I found this on an Aviation Resources forum. It's an account of an actual incident. Let's see what this civilian pilot has to say

(italics added for emphasis)


I once left the oil filler cap off of my P-210 after adding oil. I shut the access door, but the cap was dangling on its chain. I was about to start a trip to Prescott, Arizona from Denver, over the 14,000' Rocky mountains. It was about 8pm and dark when I left.
Shortly into the trip, before reaching cruising altitude of VFR 16,500', I noticed a small stream of fluid just at the base of my windscreen on the pilot's side. At first, I didn't think much of it, but then was somewhat alarmed. By the time I decided to do something about it, I was over the Collegiate Peaks, just east of Gunnison. They are about a 13,500-14,000 ridge of mountains extending north-south. I was crossing right over the tops of them in an east-west direction. Just beyond the peaks, the town of Gunnison is visible on a clear night.
I contacted Denver Center to notify them I had to land at Gunnison. They told me that the airport couldn't be opened unless I declared an emergency and 'Are you declaring an emergency?' Well, with no choice, I said 'Yes.'
So, I made a right downwind entry into the pattern at Gunnison. Someone had turned the runway lights on. I noticed something strange--the slower I went, the higher on the windscreen the liquid went. By the time I turned final, the entire left side of the windscreen was covered with oil, and I had to lean to the right to exercise the landing--feeling for the runway. Finally, I taxid to the FBO. There, I was greeted by the Fire Department and the Sheriff's Department.
The high airspeed during cruise (195kts) had blown the oil down the side of the plane, and the entire pilot's side was covered with a thin film of oil. It wasn't until I slowed to approach speed--about 67kts. that the oil was not being blown as hard and creeped up the windscreen. The plane was a mess. I'd only lost about two quarts of oil, but that was in 45 min. out of a 2.5 hr. flight.
The FBO mechanic helped me clean the plane, and we found the problem. The Sheriff's department checked all my paperwork, including the plane's airworthiness certificate, my pilots license and ratings, medical, insurance--everything. Of course, they were all there beside the runway with their lights lights on anticipating a crash. So, I spent the night in a local motel and made it to work the next day late. I didn't hear anything from the FAA--no citation or anything. Just overlooked something simple. I guess the lesson is to take anything out of the ordinary seriously and don't be afraid to declare an emergency to stay safe and land. At the time, I didn't care at all that there would be emergency vehicles and police at the airport. I just wanted to get down and check my plane. I've got a few others to relate, too.


------------------
DJSchaut

Obviously, there are key differences between a civilian pilot on a weekend jaunt and a fighter pilot on a combat mission, but here we have an experienced pilot declaring an emergency and unable to see out of the oil spattered side of his windscreen due to a relatively minor leak. I'm still convinced the in-game effect is probably more realistic than not.(Maybe this guy should play FB to get used to the effect. Might save him from having to put down next time!) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEBillfish
11-13-2005, 12:13 AM
Night.........and doesn't say he couldn't see at all through it or it would have been insturments only.

More so, it really does not fall under the design criteria I laid out above......Seriously, take a pair of glasses, or a glass cup even, pour your worst on it and remember it is stagnant...then shake them hard to stream it off......you tell me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.deloach.com/images/n7353e.jpg

JG52Karaya-X
11-13-2005, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the oil in 109 isnt that bad, compaired to newer planes...

and irl from what ive seen it would cover the canopy pretty much entirely...

Bf109s starting with G model had a cleaning system for the windshield which sprayed fuel over the glass to get rid of oil

PERSEUS1953
11-14-2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Hi All;

This feature I must admit I've been more then a little miffed at for some time. We all know it, on certain planes when the engine takes a single bullet hit the windscreen "soots" up and makes visibility impossible.

Now I actually like the aspect of the smoke MAKING you leave the fight.......Yet frankly "I believe" it is all wrong in how it's done. So before I go petitioning 1c for something else that will be forgotten, lets get your annecdotal opinions from texts you've read.

What I base my comments on are as follows......Aircraft design, airflow, canopy design, common sense.......

Though we have this happen on some aircraft, we don't on others.....Notorious for the condition is the BF109, yet new players to the sim have been the Ki-61, and of late and even more rediculous the Ki-43 (would like to know what others do this)............In ALL cases, frankly I find the condition rediculous in presentation. First off, what we see is more like soot not oil. Oil obviously a liquid and in its WORST state (burned, old, unmaintained) is still if able to move around exactly that, a liquid.

Now I myself have been in a car (Plymouth Duster) where some moron who thought he'd "look" kewl to have all his gauges outside in front of the driver....Naturally looks and practice two different things as he never maintained the engine letting the oil work to one step short of sludge...Well it just so happens one day knucklehead gets a free blower and manifold, and after removing the hood hooks it up to the engine and trying to impress the neighbor bimbo (me) in Knoxville tears off down the highway. Unfortunately a 671 supercharger designed to run on a 7:1 compression ratio engine doesn't do well on a 9-10:1.....Roughly a few seconds into the run *KaBOOM*...and a head gasket gets blown while the intake manifold unseats with all the associated fire and smoke you can imagine.......Also, the oversized oil line to the gauge gets ripped off......

Result?....Tons of smoke as oil and fuel burn on the engine pouring over the headers washing over the winshield, soot from the burn, and 5 quarts of unchanged filthy black oil spewed over the virtually FLAT windshield at 70 m.p.h......Consider now there is no hood, and that the engine is inches from the windshield. Though oil, soot & smoke covered it, it looked not a 1/10th as bad as our planes here.

Now, consider the engines here are normally seperated from the windscreen by roughly 2+' due to the guns. In kind consider in the case of the Ki-61 (not 109) the canopy/windscreen is rather rounded and heavily sloped......Also consider the design of the cowling (was not some loose piece of sheet metal)....Lastly how the engine compartment was cooled and vented. Know as well the oil resivior was INSIDE the cockpit below the gauges/dash and had to be fitted for the pilots legs to fit.

Now consider the speed and wind generated outside plus prop gust..........Sorry, it is just a flat out impossibility to get the "soot" effect we have here on the Ki-61, also likely the BF109, and more so the Ki-43.

More so, where does coal black soot come from?....It's certainly not oil as oil would be driven off the sloped glass by the wind.

Now a "blackout" type of effect for smoke in the cockpit I'd buy (though not on the Ki-61 or 43 due to its design if an engine hit)....More so, heavy black smoke like how it looks when we're close in trailing a black smoking enemy on the exterior even more so.......

Yet I find the sooting up of the windscreen simply rediculous as the planes "I know" of it happens to (Ki-61/43) it is simply an impossibility due to the design.

Opinions, what have you read, what planes do it here?

I have experienced engine oil escaping from a cracked line that feeds the controllable pitch prop. on a Mooney aircraft on two occasions, one at night and one during daylight. On both occasions the whole fuselage and wings out to about 2 feet from the root were enveloped in oil. I could not even see out of the side or rear windows, the aircraft was essentially "brown bagged" It was immpossible to even open the side "wind window" to see because the oil would be sucked into the cabin.
I declared an emergency on both occasions and landed on the gauges using the instrument landing system that was luckily available at both nearby airports. Could not even see out to taxi, opening the door brought a deluge of oil.
That was from "hairline" cracks!!!not bullet holes. I did take out a couple of runway lights
on landing rollout.You really cannot see anything through an oiled windshield at 180knots

actionhank1786
11-15-2005, 01:49 AM
this is just my guess, and by far nothing to be regareded as the word of all mighty bob, but if you're flying, wouldn't the temperature be a bit lower if you were at altitude, and oil turns to glue at really low temperatures, so i'm guessing a blown oil pump or something would get all that hot oil into the air, then when it hit the windshield would quickly get cool, and be slow to move away.
That's just my guess.
I'll test my findings by getting some hot oil, and running behind a paine of glass as fast as i can in winter.
I'll let you know what i find.

nakamura_kenji
11-15-2005, 02:22 AM
i can live with current effect but wish oleg fix so it no 1 bullet engine kill/oil windscreen ki-61 p_q. no get shot down much just leave fight because no able see this even though plane fine except no see p_q

WOLFMondo
11-15-2005, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the oil in 109 isnt that bad, compaired to newer planes...

and irl from what ive seen it would cover the canopy pretty much entirely...

Bf109s starting with G model had a cleaning system for the windshield which sprayed fuel over the glass to get rid of oil </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great but thats the last thing I'd want to do with a possible engine fire on its way!

major_setback
11-15-2005, 02:53 AM
Oily planes. All I know about the pictures is that they were captioned 'oilleak1' and 'oilleak2'. They're pretty oilly!:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/810_1110174787_oilleak2.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/810_1110174765_oilleak1.jpg

ShilkaLive
11-15-2005, 05:22 AM
I guess these pictures prove that the ingame effect really isn't that bad.

I like the effect ingame, it's immersive and gives me an extra sense of accomplishment when I manage to make it away from the fight and back to base in one virtual piece.

x6BL_Brando
11-15-2005, 05:50 AM
As shown by the Jug photos, a sumpful of used oil is quite dirty! It's wrong to suggest that what is in a hot, well-thrashed engine is clean and translucent like it was when first inserted.
I also think that the other big misunderstanding is in the bullet's (or bullets', or cannon shell(s)') effect on an engine.

I've been on a bike when a con-rod has sheared off the piston and smacked its way clean through the crankcase, pretty thrilling, and I had the head blow off a Jag leaving a humungous dent in the bonnet (hood?) of the car. Neither of these two incidents had anything to do with bullets though, but the effect was similar in both cases - hot, dirty oil dumped everywhere.
The bike dumped downwards and covered the back of the bike (it was a wild skid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) But the car's bonnet was forced open to the limits of the safety catch, about an inch, and a mixture of smoke, hot oil B]and[/B] engine debris blew straight over the winscreen - totally obscuring our view forward. Bear in mind that the engine was still turning over during the first part of this incident. Oil and fuel were still pumping, sparks were still being made, and we were bl**dy lucky not to have an explosion in the engine compartment while my mind wrestled with what to do in this never-previously-experienced situation. Fortunately we survived with no more injury than a dead car.

Now consider the effect of a live round penetrating a sealed engine compartment and impacting the engine in a vital spot. We've mostly read about the block-penetrating qualities of the Magnum .357 handgun - so what about a .50 cal or two, or an explosive shell, fired from a rifled, long barrel with a far stronger platform than Clint Eastwood's forearms? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Surely that might blow a couple a couple of bonnet-catches?

Comparing non-explosive incidents with the devastating effect of even a single round in a vulnerable spot is a fatuous argument in my opinion, and my only criticism is that more could have been made of the effects - viz. the previous photographs. I guess an average of a certain condition had to be settled on, and the half blackened effect was the result. We could do with more variables - but there it is.

I was in a coop last night, flying banked side-on to an enemy convoy (a pretty dumb thing to do!), when a single round entered the engine compartment and killed the engine with an audible clunk. It sounds quite unlikely, or even 'unfair', until picturing how an engine would behave with its crankshaft bisected. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

bogusheadbox
11-15-2005, 06:44 AM
I would have to agree with the previous post and the pictures afore mentioned.

And in response to another thread regarding the viscosity of oil at low tempretures. It is true that oil - Clean oil, becomes very "boggy" and thick at cold tempretures. I would hate to see how dirty oil would be like at very cold tempretures.

You don't need much altitude either for the tempreture to reach zero.

I know engine oil in an aircraft is of a different grade to that of cars. But just look to countries that enjoy periods of -30 and lower degrees where they plug their engines into a socket to keep the oil fluid for the next time they start.

Also to add to fluid simply wiping off the canopy. I don't necessarily agree. My last flight in a bulldog (which has a magnificent all plexiglass cockpits canopy) The small shower we flew through, the water beaded and didn't move in a way typical to which you would think. It would just sit there and swirl around in small radius gathering other spots until it found a place it could fly off or dissapate from evaporation.

LEBillfish
11-15-2005, 08:15 AM
Well after those P47 picks and personal aircraft experience........

I stand corrected http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

BaronUnderpants
11-15-2005, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by major_setback:
Oily planes. All I know about the pictures is that they were captioned 'oilleak1' and 'oilleak2'. They're pretty oilly!:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/810_1110174787_oilleak2.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/810_1110174765_oilleak1.jpg


Wow, thats oily http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Would never have belived it could look like that without the pictures, looks like they pored black paint all over them.

Know what Bill means and agree that the "smoke" effect could be done in a better way and not like it is now when its so bad that u almost get "smoked" screen when u get hit arround the tail http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif One hit any where near the engine shouldnt mean almost automatic sooty screen = sitting duck and out of the fight.

Just dont ask me what this change should be, sounds easy enough to change...but doesnt mean it is.

carguy_
11-15-2005, 09:07 AM
Well the Me109 having a very small windshield should be covered all in oil so the pilot would follow his instruments only,that is if he want to stay in the plane.Now covering the whole 109 windshield in oil is wrong cuz there was a special device mounted in the vicinity of the windshield which spilled liquid that cleaned the windsield,not entirely ofcourse.So there.

GT182
11-15-2005, 09:26 AM
As Carguy said, the 109s had a cleaning fluid reservoir for getting oil off the windscreen? Now why couldn't that be added in for them? As for other a/c types I've no idea, but seeing the P-47 pictures I'd guess they didn't have it.

major_setback
11-15-2005, 10:26 AM
Here's a picture of a Jug with a much smaller oil leakage (and some good stories http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) :

http://www.78thfightergroup.com/history/maxjuchheim.html

From (homepage):

http://www.78thfightergroup.com/history/78thFGportraits.html

d9720267
11-15-2005, 11:47 AM
Ctrl-Alt-Del will make you climb out and give it a wipe.

LEBillfish
11-26-2005, 06:39 AM
Rethought this and ashamed I buckled so fast.........Though the P47 pics are impressive it's a radial....Note how around the entire back portion of the engine how oil can escape....

Again, a virtual impossibility with the Ki-61 unless you were able to blow off the top cover (which would also be a virtual impossibility).

There just is not access to the engine from the top that would easily allow such oiling......Again, it is not just a thin piece of sheet metal being double walled and ribbed to help support the engine bay unlike say a BF109 cowling......If so, then why don't all other inlines do this (most with cheesy engine covers due to the engine supporting design).........More so all the radials to an even greater degree?

VF2_Snowman
11-26-2005, 09:30 AM
I was in a Norseman that blew an oil line on takeoff. The windshield was covered in black oil, so much so that the pilot had to open his side window and stick his head out to see. Initially the oil streamed up the windshield but then it cooled and was too thick to stream.

Woof603
11-26-2005, 05:49 PM
Flight training in a T6 and and something somewhat technical let go under the cowling. Oil covered the windshield to the point I had to make a circling approach and landing with the hood open and and one eyeball stuck out in the breeze. FB/PF looks pretty accurate to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

actionhank1786
11-26-2005, 07:06 PM
I'm still working on my experiment to run headlong into a fountain of motor oil

chris455
11-26-2005, 07:11 PM
I think the photos speak for themselves, but I also feel Billfish has a point re: inline engines vs. radials.

Possible that "the effect" was decided upon during early game development and was applied to all aircraft irrespective of engine type. It is probable that due to the position of the cowl flaps on a radial that oil would escape from the engine compartment much more easily than from an inline engine.

(Of course piping hot, vaporized coolant escaping from severed coolant lines and blowing back over the canopy through bullet/ cannon holes in the cowling wouldn't be easy to see through either, but that's a whole different discussion.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It has been written that in the Pacific, you could tell at a glance during a dogfight the nationality of crashing aircraft: Zeros and Ki-43s streamed fire and smoke, P-39s and P-40s streamed coolant vapor. ("Prestone" in the vernacular).

I don't think leaking coolant ( a very real hazard in combat on inline engined planes) is modelled in the game, perhaps the oil thing was done as s a sort of universal "fluid casualty".

In any case, the effect should probably be reduced on inlines, per Billfish's observations.

VT-51_Razor
11-26-2005, 10:57 PM
I think Billfish's point is that, although the Jug pictures are pretty irrefutable evidence of what an oil leak can do to a radial engine plane, it might not be that bad on an inline machine like a Pony, or a Ki-61, or Spit for that matter (I experienced it tonight LOL). I have witnessed first hand, what a blown prop seal can do to a Gruman Agcat, and it wasn't very pretty at all, but I wonder if she doesn't have a point about some of the stuff we're seeing in the game here. My guess is, they all have it to some degree or another, regardless of what type of plane it is, just because it's easy, and it "looks cool" to a computer programer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daiichidoku
11-27-2005, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Well the Me109 having a very small windshield should be covered all in oil so the pilot would follow his instruments only,that is if he want to stay in the plane.Now covering the whole 109 windshield in oil is wrong cuz there was a special device mounted in the vicinity of the windshield which spilled liquid that cleaned the windsield,not entirely ofcourse.So there.


if i had a scanner i could post a pic of this 109 system in operation

about 5 ot 6 very fine jets shoot up from the base of the windshield

i beleive the idea was for de-icing

the fluid was neat fuel



i dont see why neat av fuel could not cut oil, if only partially

luftluuver
11-27-2005, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Well the Me109 having a very small windshield should be covered all in oil so the pilot would follow his instruments only,that is if he want to stay in the plane.Now covering the whole 109 windshield in oil is wrong cuz there was a special device mounted in the vicinity of the windshield which spilled liquid that cleaned the windsield,not entirely ofcourse.So there.

This fuel washing was mentioned by JG52Karaya-X on page 1.


Bf109s starting with G model had a cleaning system for the windshield which sprayed fuel over the glass to get rid of oil

The 190 also had such a system.

IL2-chuter
11-27-2005, 02:41 AM
Most WW2 warbird oil systems were dry sump. The oil tanks would range in capacity from, say, 13 gals on the P-38 (ea. engine) and Me109 to 40 gals on the P-47N. In both the Jug pics above it looks like the oil was coming from missing cylinder damage (as opposed to missing heads which wouldn't leak near so much) as the oil tank is under the panel behind the cowl flaps and the oil appears to be coming from the upper half of the engines (note the damaged cowl panel in photo 1). If the oil tank was punctured the effect would look very different as the oil would tend to leak out the bottom and lower sides of the fuselage at the firewall but the oil loss would be more dramatic and the planes above might not have made it back.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

This is the plane the USAF should have used in Korea.

EPP_Gibbs
11-27-2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
1 hit anywhere and boom, dead engine, oiled windscreen, fuel pissing everywhere, and fireball........Guess my post as to errors with the Ki-61 was taken as errors to the opposite....As they made the problems I pointed out worse (or so it seems having no first hand knowledge if they worked with the DM).

.

Yeah..that's the KI-43 for you. It never did like battle damage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Spit oils up nicely too.

The screen oil-up feature has been in the game since IL-2 v 1.0. I suspect they wanted a representation of the effect but were bound by how much code, processing power, etc, they could devote to that one small facet.

Sure, they could have rendered it beautifully, perfectly animated oil streaking over the canopy. Smoke and flame billowing into the cockpit....and we could all sit back and enjoy the artistry of it as the game chugs along at 8 fps.

Count the Whines;

Unrealistic Oil effect....(1)

vs

Game boggingly slow...(14,595,267)

It's not difficult to see why it is they way it is.

Maybe with BoB or a subsequent patch they might do something about it given PC's are more capable now, or rather will be, when BoB is released.

My little bugbear is gun recoil. Machine guns recoil like mad, Cannons fire away rock steady. Try it in a Spit Vb or IXc. Were the recoil dampers on cannons that effective?

EPP_Gibbs
11-27-2005, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
i can live with current effect but wish oleg fix so it no 1 bullet engine kill/oil windscreen ki-61 p_q. no get shot down much just leave fight because no able see this even though plane fine except no see p_q

Except that one bullet CAN kill an engine, rupture an oil line/tank or drain the cooling system.

Daiichidoku
11-27-2005, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Well the Me109 having a very small windshield should be covered all in oil so the pilot would follow his instruments only,that is if he want to stay in the plane.Now covering the whole 109 windshield in oil is wrong cuz there was a special device mounted in the vicinity of the windshield which spilled liquid that cleaned the windsield,not entirely ofcourse.So there.

This fuel washing was mentioned by JG52Karaya-X on page 1.


Bf109s starting with G model had a cleaning system for the windshield which sprayed fuel over the glass to get rid of oil

The 190 also had such a system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

it was about 3 am where i am when i posted

i actually went through the thread to make sure i wasnt being entriely redundant, but...it was 3am http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEBillfish
11-27-2005, 12:47 PM
Well agin to restate.........Besides the fact that the Ki-61 is a "1 bullet, engine sieze up, insta kill with assured oiling" unlike any other here......

My issue is with the fact that where in radial engined planes I can see oiling.....few do. In kind few inline engined planes do. Lastly, unlike virtually ALL inline engined planes the Ki-61 has a very unique supporting structure where the sheet metal body does the work not a tubular frame....So the engine is surrounded by double+ walled sheet metal to make a rigid structure..........In the end it works like a baffle.

So a bullet in the side of the engine would mean oil would most likely follow the sides of the plane or drain out the only open point the bottom. Bottom same.....Top cover would be still out the bottom as that's how the air flows, and IF it was under preassure and COULD stream toward the holes made through the double wall cover....It would be a mirical shot for the most part.

NOT.....every, single, engine hit.

p.s.......Oil capacity held in both a main tank between the pilots legs behind the insturments and in a reserve in the fusalage rearward varied between 45 then lessened to 40 liters....That's roughly 10 gallons.

GerritJ9
11-27-2005, 03:06 PM
The P-40E also has this tendency to oil up its windscreen after only one or two hits in (presumably) the engine area, as I have just discovered. Don't know whether this is historically accurate though- perhaps those who "specialize" in P-40s can enlighten us.

chris455
11-27-2005, 10:20 PM
In my experience, virtually ALL US aircraft suffer from engine "insta-kill".
HOWEVER:

I fly US types 90% of the time, so I refrain from saying it is only the US types. I'm sure lufties et al will agree.

I was engaged in dialogue with 1C some time ago re: the P-40 engine DM, and was told it was fixed, but it still seems this very robust type has a glass jaw. Likewise the P-47. I have noted, however, that the Ki-61/ Ki-100 family can't take a shot either, and these two are said to have been among the more robust IJAAF types. Compare these to the 4.02 Ki-43, a type that was renowned for it's propensity to brew up with only one or two hits !!!
We may only see a solution to the oily windshield issue in BoB, if then. Even so, it's still a great sim.

KIMURA
11-27-2005, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
So a bullet in the side of the engine would mean oil would most likely follow the sides of the plane or drain out the only open point the bottom. Bottom same.....Top cover would be still out the bottom as that's how the air flows, and IF it was under preassure and COULD stream toward the holes made through the double wall cover....It would be a mirical shot for the most part.
NOT.....every, single, engine hit.
p.s.......Oil capacity held in both a main tank between the pilots legs behind the insturments and in a reserve in the fusalage rearward varied between 45 then lessened to 40 liters....That's roughly 10 gallons.

IMHO oil that sprays out of a hit engine goes everywhere and doesn't care about drains or something like that. Panels are covering the engine are not sealed so oil leaks out where a way is. But IMHO LEBillfish is right that some a/c suffers much more of that effect than others.

LEBillfish
11-27-2005, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
IMHO oil that sprays out of a hit engine goes everywhere and doesn't care about drains or something like that. Panels are covering the engine are not sealed so oil leaks out where a way is. But IMHO LEBillfish is right that some a/c suffers much more of that effect than others.

Actually that's not quite true....Sprays out, yet is enclosed and as I said the Ki-61 relied upon tight component surfaces simply for structural integrity......Check out the drawings I posted....What I need to add to those are the top cover.......I'd bet most of us could stand on it and it would not be distorted.

For it to be of any value though it would require it to fit tight.....So if you spray ALL the oil over a roughly 40sq. foot surface and in it at the top (gravity still applies here) of this box is a 3/4" hole.....how much oil comes out there?

KIMURA
11-28-2005, 12:15 AM
Hi LEBillfish

The only drawing I found was this one.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/GunsDwg2.jpg

Actually I don't find (except the fire wall) any kind of seal that makes the engine tight so no fluid can run out the panel lines. Neither panel nor its lines are fluid tight. IMHO fluids like oil "don't care about cravitiy" as long the circumstances are right to run everywhere. See pics of blasted engines in motor sport or the posted pics above of the P-47.

Here a well known example of leaks plaqing the early Corsairs. If the statement whould be true fluids would only runs downwards the tapes would not been apply.
http://www.squadron.com/old/corsairhc/corsairhc5.jpg

Same here. Note the oil absorber ring - only covers the upper 180? degrees, avoid oily windshield. Also had the Bf109G a cleaning system for it's windshield if problems occuring during flight and kept the windshield clear.
http://bourdeixg.club.fr/histoire/hurricane_fichiers/hurricane_capot.JPG

major_setback
11-28-2005, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:


.... Note the oil absorber ring - only covers the upper 180? degrees, avoid oily windshield. Also had the Bf109G a cleaning system for it's windshield if problems occuring during flight and kept the windshield clear.
....

I always wondered what that ring was for! Thanks, now I can sleep at night. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

bogusheadbox
11-28-2005, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
IMHO oil that sprays out of a hit engine goes everywhere and doesn't care about drains or something like that. Panels are covering the engine are not sealed so oil leaks out where a way is. But IMHO LEBillfish is right that some a/c suffers much more of that effect than others.

Actually that's not quite true....Sprays out, yet is enclosed and as I said the Ki-61 relied upon tight component surfaces simply for structural integrity......Check out the drawings I posted....What I need to add to those are the top cover.......I'd bet most of us could stand on it and it would not be distorted.

For it to be of any value though it would require it to fit tight.....So if you spray ALL the oil over a roughly 40sq. foot surface and in it at the top (gravity still applies here) of this box is a 3/4" hole.....how much oil comes out there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure gravity would be the only contributing factor that dictates where oil would run.

Hi performance engines run very hot. very Hot oil has a tendancy to "atomise" (kind of like a fine spray paint gun in a panel beaters shop). We would call them oil vapours, but are actually very small very hot droplets of oil that can be carried on the updrafts of hot air from the engine.

Another thing to think about would be what happends when you put water into boiling (and then think about burning) oil. it only takes a small amount of water to engulf an entire kitchen in oil (or flames) from one pot of boiling (or bunring) oil.

If you have suffered engine damage due to enemy fire. Chances are you may have, water from a dmaged radiator mixing with the oil.

Oil has a mad tendancy to get into places you would not readily think possible.

LEBillfish
11-28-2005, 06:58 AM
Kimura, the difference is as an example where in a BF109 had a tubular frame cradling the engine, the sheet metal around it simply to streamline so fit and contact between pieces did little.......The Ki-61 had no tubular frame. The actual body the supporting structure so the sides, nose pieces, tob and bottom covers had to be tight and rigid to one another to maintain structural integrity.

I'll try and get some photo's up today as it's a very important point.......The Ki-61 was MUCH different in it's construction then most other planes the BF109 simply a similar shape.

luftluuver
11-28-2005, 08:12 AM
Here are some pics of an Australian Ki-61 in need of repairs.

http://community.webshots.com/album/235442219eKCadh

As can be noticed the top panel is attached by clamps which would be of no use in adding strength. The forward fuselage sides were the support/mounting structure for the engine.

LEBillfish
11-28-2005, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Here are some pics of an Australian Ki-61 in need of repairs.

http://community.webshots.com/album/235442219eKCadh
As can be noticed the top panel is attached by clamps which would be of no use in adding strength. The forward fuselage sides were the support/mounting structure for the engine.

Granted, the engine took up most of that load as did the axial support and as you see the body framing in the engine compartment is designed primarily for plane C.L. axis and vertical support.....However if it flexed any at all the mounting holes would elongate and the skin buckle at the firewall....The top cover was not just a flimsy piece of sheet metal. Sadly I'm at a loss to find the only picture I had of one inverted....So look at what is shown below and consider where you see rivets are supporting ribs and tubular gun ports(on both sides of each clamp point arcing over the cover)...The cover made to be very rigid and sit tight to the fusalage.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/235442219/235484419ghmBdJ

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/ki-61-tony-five.jpg Courtesy of Jim Long.

The clamps of a type requiring you pass a contact position like a toggle, so essentially flexing metal once the heavt cover makes contact with the body, then as you pass that point the clamp snapping into place held by tension. So "fit" very important as too loose or any at all and the clamp would not secure, too tight and you'd bend metal if you could even clamp it.

This last photo which you can find at j-aircraft.com "walk arounds"...SHowing the integrity of "fit" on a crashed relic...Below the under cover slightly exposed and having less effect.....Photo by "Ron Cole"

http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/ron_cole/ki_61/Ki61%202.jpg


BTW.......the "T" shaped container you see here is the oil tank that the pilots legs straddled behind the insturments, the other behind the cockpit......

http://community.webshots.com/photo/235442219/235490145vbvsjH

GerritJ9
11-28-2005, 03:35 PM
Restoring that Ha-40 engine to running condition will in itself be a daunting task. The castings may be sound, but the running gear will all have to be remanufactured. Ha-40 crankshafts suffered from poor heat treatment during manufacture, plus insufficient accuracy in machining. Furthermore, Japanese industry was at that time incapable of manufacturing ball bearings with the necessary precision, and all this resulted in an unreliable engine. Ditto for the fuel injection system- here, too Japanese industry was incapable of manufacturing parts to the original German specifications.

GerritJ9
11-28-2005, 03:38 PM
Extremely interesting and advanced engine bay construction- forerunner of monocoque F1 and motorcycle practice.

luftluuver
11-28-2005, 05:45 PM
Most large panels have inside bracing > check the 109 and 190 which also used clamps to hold the panels in place. Most clamps have a spring or if it is a pure cam type they are position adjustable for correct operation.

To be a load bearing structure the panels would have to be bolted to the engine's monocoupe structure.

There is no way the engine mounting holes would be elongated by flexing. The engine bearer would buckle before that.

LEBillfish
11-28-2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Most large panels have inside bracing > check the 109 and 190 which also used clamps to hold the panels in place. Most clamps have a spring or if it is a pure cam type they are position adjustable for correct operation.

To be a load bearing structure the panels would have to be bolted to the engine's monocoupe structure.

There is no way the engine mounting holes would be elongated by flexing. The engine bearer would buckle before that.


Think you're missing the whole point of this......That being oil as is suggested spewing out. It's not just sheet metal butted together with significant gaps, these are beefy structures through design...Look at where the cover rests upon. It in itself would make a labyrinth seal of sorts. In kind this is not like an air cooled radial with massive amounts of air flowing into the engine compartment pressurizing it causing massive amounts of any fluid atomized or not to jet out from any and every crevice it can find.

Or is the design of this structure not clearly shown yet..........Better still, find me one anecdote or photo of a Ki-61 with the covers on even a 1/100th as oiled on the "top side" in comparison to those suggested about other planes.

Oz_Canuck
11-28-2005, 07:15 PM
Interesting read, but you guys need to get out more........

Daiichidoku
11-28-2005, 07:35 PM
why? you just arrived in the bottomless pit to give us new company http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LEBillfish
11-28-2005, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
why? you just arrived in the bottomless pit to give us new company http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I feel like a "Slim-Jim".....Dog pile the new guy!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oz_Canuck
11-28-2005, 08:13 PM
...more likely cover me in engine oil and light me on fire! Keep up the good work.......

KIMURA
11-29-2005, 01:11 AM
Hi LEBillfish

I've just seen your post overthere @ j-aircraft.com. 1st I have to say t oavoid misunderstandings. The effect OM modelled on the windshield seem seem overdone to me in the way the black color is applied. IMHO A "oiled2 windshield should appear like a brown creasy film. Not like the complete black we actually have.


Here my point. See location of filler neck and engine cover panel. If the tank would been hit oil would find a way throught the engine panel lines to outside.
http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Japan/Kawasaki/images/Ki61Weeks.jpg

other pic. Copy and paste to see it.
http://image28.webshots.com/28/7/31/83/235473183wSgwwb_ph.jpg

Today I'll scan a Mary mechanic 3D-scetch to better show the engine assembly situation.

bogusheadbox
11-29-2005, 06:22 AM
I don't know Lebilfish.

Even though those pictures on page 2 are in black and white. The contrast of the oil on the canopy seems very dark to me ????

Anyone care to blow their engine up while airborne to sort this out once and for all ?

LEBillfish
11-29-2005, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
Hi LEBillfish

I've just seen your post overthere @ j-aircraft.com. 1st I have to say t oavoid misunderstandings. The effect OM modelled on the windshield seem seem overdone to me in the way the black color is applied. IMHO A "oiled2 windshield should appear like a brown creasy film. Not like the complete black we actually have.


Here my point. See location of filler neck and engine cover panel. If the tank would been hit oil would find a way throught the engine panel lines to outside..

Well...........See there is my point....Oil fill is on the "Back" of the fuselage......Second tank is "In" the cockpit with the pilot.....Oil lines run behind the wingroot transition pieces, in the center wingsection itself, and all low "below the cockpit.........Above the axis of the plane is simply the crankhousing.....

Generously provided to me by Masa-san
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/EngineOilSystem.jpg

Original Supplier Copyright unable to be found..
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/EngineDwg1.jpg

Altered Mechanism of Military Aircraft drawing
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/OilSys.jpg

IL2-chuter
11-29-2005, 12:31 PM
Could Oleg have carried the 109 damage model over to the Ki61 because it has the "same" engine? (The 109's oil tank is behind the prop.)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

LEBillfish
11-29-2005, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
Could Oleg have carried the 109 damage model over to the Ki61 because it has the "same" engine? (The 109's oil tank is behind the prop.)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

It actually seems he carried over "much" of the 109E4 to the Ki-61......Trouble is, though initially the DB601, BF109E & HE-100 were intended to be "copied" by various "other" firms.....They were just used as research models and never copied in any form.....Everything on the Ki-61 was "original" even the Ha-40 though similar to a DB601 was not the same beast.

In the end the Ki-61 here got none of the advantages of the 109, all of the disadvantages, and then some extra disadvantages tossed in for good measure many from myth and assumption based on the A6M.

Hence the "Ki-61 Fact & Myth" thread I started.

(ex. The Ki-61 had 8mm of radiator armor, significant range that far exceeded the 109, and leak absorbing PLUS rubber armored fuel tanks, plus tank independance (could switch from tank to tank so you'd not run dry if one was hit......and up to 16mm of pilot armor).

Totally different beast....really a pity as it stands not even getting its top end.

LEBillfish
12-10-2005, 11:23 AM
Ok, a recap as this horse is still twitching.

IL2-Chuter brings up a GREAT point, that being the BF109's oil tank was behind the prop. As pointed out above the Ki-61's is behind the insturments "inside" the cockpit, with a second behind the cockpit in the fusalage.

In kind, due to the "type" of engine it being an "inverted V". That would mean all the space as you can see "above" the c.l. of the plane is dead space except for the crank. Meaning the only oil would be that flowing up to the crank journal bearings, the rest "probably" simply moved through the crank oil journals to the rods.

So any collection point would be low where the majority of components are.

So again, based on;
Engine design
Oil resivoir location
Openings/venting to the outside
Difference to openings vs. say a radial
on and on

Still just not buying it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

vman1966
12-10-2005, 01:45 PM
Ithought you might know the answer to this question. How do i get the red and blue arrows as weel as the distance to the enemy on my shift F-1 display I did it once but don't know how? thanks vman1966

major_setback
12-10-2005, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by vman1966:
Ithought you might know the answer to this question. How do i get the red and blue arrows as weel as the distance to the enemy on my shift F-1 display I did it once but don't know how? thanks vman1966

Post this as a seperate thread, it is at the moment burried in a thread that only the saddest gits in the world are following http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif....how to do this:
Go back to the main forum page and scroll to the top of it. Select the 'new' tab above the list of forum threads, then select 'discussion'. You will have to type a title for the new thread at the top of the window that has opened or it won't work.


In answer to your question...I can't saee why this isn't working now if you had this function previously. Try opening the 'controls' menu which is on the main page of the game. Check which command is assigned to 'no cockpit view'. You might try changing the command to ex. "Alt F1". The command must be pressed repeatedly in order to toggle through the various no-cockpit options.

LEBillfish
12-11-2005, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by major_setback:
Post this as a seperate thread, it is at the moment burried in a thread that only the saddest gits in the world are following http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif.....

Welcome fellow Git Setback ooga, booga, la tee tee pooOOOORupUE!!....(Git secret society greeting) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ElAurens
12-11-2005, 10:47 AM
This prolly should go in the fact or myth thread, but has anyone done proper in game testing of the Ki61, with tracks and sent them to TAGERT for proper device link analysis? It would be interesting to see the real in game performance of this aircraft.

Also, what are the the numbers for the Ki61 from Japanses Army Flying Corps testing? Does anyone even know the real world numbers for this plane?

And looking at the lubrication circuit diagrams it seems to me that the only way to oil the canopy would be a direct hit in the crankcase of the engine, which would probably stop it anyway.

LEBillfish
12-11-2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
This prolly should go in the fact or myth thread, but has anyone done proper in game testing of the Ki61, with tracks and sent them to TAGERT for proper device link analysis? It would be interesting to see the real in game performance of this aircraft.

Also, what are the the numbers for the Ki61 from Japanses Army Flying Corps testing? Does anyone even know the real world numbers for this plane?

And looking at the lubrication circuit diagrams it seems to me that the only way to oil the canopy would be a direct hit in the crankcase of the engine, which would probably stop it anyway.

What numbers are you looking for?......From my sources I have some extensive numbers for the various points of armor, the varied liquid capacities, changes in locations of fluid tanks, etc. all based on S/N & date of manufacture. Speed, climb rate, turn rates and the like sadly however arrive from handed down sources. Meaning some are claimed as Kawasaki numbers, some JAFC, some captured plane testing. Yet in most cases they all revert back to a couple principal sources their then claimed "original" source varied by the author. So in the end really, there is only one source "readily" available on them.

However, what is really needed are the U.S. & Austrailian captured plane reports. Unfortunately I'd guess they did not test the planes to their limits. Never the less they would be valuable to have.

As to Tagert testing, send him a pm see if he wants to do it for you......My guess however is that TAS/IAS/Alt numbers in the sim though they may be off are probably relative to all planes. Meaning if a P38 say can reach its max IAS, yet a Ki-61 can't, then the Ki-61 is simply too slow.

Someone posed above a point I'd believe to be true, that the FM & DM of the BF109E4 seemed to have been transferred to the Ki-61 (wrongly)...I'd say that "seems" to be the case and a comparison of the two would be interesting.

ElAurens
12-11-2005, 11:19 AM
Thanks Billfish. I made a seperate post both here and in ORR about the inflight performance numbers.

I may go do some testing of the Ko and see what I get...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEBillfish
12-11-2005, 12:36 PM
See if you can find the TAIU or NAS reports on the New Britain captured Ki-61, I've yet to find an actual report.

marc_hawkins
12-12-2005, 09:34 PM
Post this as a seperate thread, it is at the moment burried in a thread that only the saddest gits in the world are following

Nooo! when did that happen?! i'm only 27 and still trendy! well, er... bugger. Just pass me your copy of 'oil tank monthly' when you are all finished with it.

Sturm_Williger
12-14-2005, 04:44 AM
Post this as a seperate thread, it is at the moment burried in a thread that only the saddest gits in the world are following

Oi ! That's really not fair, I'm one of the sadder gits, 'tis true, but not the SADDEST !

Must say that I was always disappointed that the 109/190 windscreen oil cleaning was not modelled ( hey, even going from opaque black oiled to slightly transparent brown stained would have been good enough )

LEBillfish
12-14-2005, 07:26 AM
No one, not one person has a cut away view showing the location of the BF109E4 oil resivior?

chris455
12-14-2005, 04:34 PM
Sorry I don't have one on hand, but I did find this on the WWW:

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/Messerschmitt_BF_109e.jpg


They also have identical prints of Tony.

Available here:

Me-109E-4 Cutaway Print (http://www.aviationshoppe.com/catalog/messerschmitt-bf109-me109-p-90.html)