indiaciki Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF0geHSTsXc&feature=youtube_gdata_player Does anybody have any idea how wide the actual runways were? They look way too wide. Maybe I'm wrong. Edited January 14, 2015 by indiaciki 1
SOLIDKREATE Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) From my air traffic control experience, most of the ones I have see were 200ft wide. But in WW2 I believe they were 150ft wide. The airspace, approach and airport design is determined by what is called a TERP's specialist (Terminal Instrument Procedures). Everything is calculated according to safety, WX (weather) history, magnetic variation, aircraft performance & weight and bird & wildlife activity. FAA link: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs400/afs420/terps_tools/ More info from Airliners.net: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/281383/ Edited January 14, 2015 by SPEKTRE76
andyw248 Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 From historical videos it seems taking off in pairs was standard operating procedure back then. That would have required runways wide enough for two planes taking off in formation.
Finkeren Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 The runways in BoS are of varying with, but overall they don't seem unrealistic to me. I wouldn't expect a runway to be just broad enough to fit a bomber. Rather I would expect two bombers to be able to pass one another safely. The video postedby the OP doesn't really add much of an argument either. In the winter conditions it'd be pretty hard to tell the actual with of the runway. BTW: Totally off topic, but try taking a look at the short bit of gun cam footage halfway through the vid: Looks like BoS got the visuals of the DM almost exactly right. That might just as well have been in-game footage from BoS.
361fundahl Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 I like them because room to drift 109 on ground before take off!
Adriaan Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF0geHSTsXc&feature=youtube_gdata_player Sorry for the off-topic, but does anyone know the source film of that clip? Edited January 15, 2015 by Adriaan
Y-29.Silky Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 My question is if they're long enough. Granted I suck at landing sometimes, it feels like I'm always nosing over to prevent over shooting the runway.
Y-29.Silky Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Btw see how many pieces were falling off that Yak? Especially that big fireball, that'd be nice to see in the game.
Potenz Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 BTW: Totally off topic, but try taking a look at the short bit of gun cam footage halfway through the vid: Looks like BoS got the visuals of the DM almost exactly right. That might just as well have been in-game footage from BoS. Yes the visual damage in BoS is very realistic. to the OP, i take lessons on a Piper PA-11 and the local runway it's quite wide, it can fit two or three PA-11 in it
SvAF/F19_Klunk Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 KInd of depends on what kind of runways we talk about.. Swedish Volunteer Unit F19 based in Northern Finland during Winter War used frozen lakes as airbases
BlackBadger Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Yes the visual damage in BoS is very realistic. "Very realistic" is very relative. It doesn't take into account things like angles of incoming projectiles. Damage is calculated on hitpoint basis rather then calculating the hit of an internal component. As a result normally nonfatal hits cause massive damage and create many separate plumes of thick smoke from weird places Every plane I shoot from dead six starts smoking from pretty much everywhere... The effect is overdone. By the by, it is entirely possible to adjust the DM to be more realistic even with the hitpoint/hitbox system but it would require more hitboxes and some smaller ones hidden inside bigger ones. Edited January 15, 2015 by hnbdgr
Brano Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Pointless thread.Airfields on Stalingrad map are done according to real situation of 1942.To the detail of hexagonal concrete tiles on Gumrak AF which can be seen on satelite pics even today. 1
Mastermariner Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Pointless thread.Airfields on Stalingrad map are done according to real situation of 1942.To the detail of hexagonal concrete tiles on Gumrak AF which can be seen on satelite pics even today. This! I trust the team to make a realistic air field. Only they could have made them a tiny bit softer. Master
GP* Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) I have no idea if the airfields are historically accurate to the inch, but they certainly don't seem too wide at all. They look fine to me. Edited January 16, 2015 by Prefontaine
-TBC-AeroAce Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Even if not correct they are a good practicle size Just out of interest was Gumrak captured from the vvs or did the axis construct it?
Dakpilot Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 The hexagonal pre-cast concrete "tiles" at Gumrak are a typical Soviet construction technique of the era (1931 onwards) and can be found at many other airports, I believe they were also used as a temporary set up for some roads as well Cheers Dakpilot
Finkeren Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Gumrak is actually todays Volgograd International Airport (though the original military airstrip has been out of service for decades) and IIRC it was one of the first concrete runway airports in the area.
Brano Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Part of the old strip with concrete hex tiles is visible.Just check google maps.
-TBC-AeroAce Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I looked on Google early and could not really spot the hex, maybe someone with a keen eye can post a pic
-TBC-AeroAce Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 On another note u can quite clearly see the outline of Pitomnik using Google, it's just a grass field but out line is very cleat
Brano Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Picture is not very clear,thats true.Just check in google maps Volgograd International airport and zoom to east end of it.There is small patch of old runway with U turn and you can see tiles there.Most probably there was asphalt layer applied after war and some parts of this small patch are covered by it.
Guest deleted@30725 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I often think roads are too wide. Then you pass a large lorry or oversized load and realize why.
indiaciki Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 They are visually bad. It's way easier to land on frozen rivers or snow fields than on those airfields. They were not designed for B17 or large bomber sqaudrons taking off in formation. But okay. They are like this and I sure it won't change.
Uufflakke Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 About the hexagonal airfield plates, to make it more confusing, here it is said that the Germans used them during their invasion in Russia and after WWII the Russians adopted this system. http://inscale.org/pub/index.php?topic=1609.0
Willy__ Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 They are visually bad. It's way easier to land on frozen rivers or snow fields than on those airfields. Interesting. WIth me is just the opposite. Everytime I have to make an emergency landing on a snow field I tend to unluckly find some terrain irregularity(hills, depressions and so on) that makes a very bad landing with me breaking something of the plane.
Dakpilot Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 About the hexagonal airfield plates, to make it more confusing, here it is said that the Germans used them during their invasion in Russia and after WWII the Russians adopted this system. http://inscale.org/pub/index.php?topic=1609.0 That Article is incorrect, it is only hearsay, from documentation - Naum Sapozhnikov and Raymond Rollings, Soviet Precast Pre-stressed Construction for Airfields, 2007 "The Soviet Union began building its first concrete airfield pavements in 1931-1932. These were constructed using unreinforced concrete hexagons 1.2m (48in) long per side and 100 to 140mm (4 to 5.5in) thick. As aircraft became heavier, the hexagon length was increased to 1.5m (60in) and thickness increased up to 220mm (8.8in). These unreinforced hexagonal slabs often had problems with rocking and spalling, and as modern concrete placement equipment became available after 1950, rectangular cast-in-situ pavement slabs became more common." I believe Gumrak was constructed in the early thirties, I find it unlikely that it was rebuilt by German forces with hexagonal tiles transported to from Germany (considering the logistics) during the Battle of Stalingrad, so by assumption the Hexagonal tiles at Gumrak are the original Soviet type Cheers Dakpilot
indiaciki Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 From Russian Forum That's exactly what I was talking about...
Brano Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 If you check that old patch on Volgograd Int Airport (Gumrak) in google maps it is rougly 90m wide. Btw what is that airfield on screenshots from russian forum?To compare apples with apples. 1
Willy__ Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 So they're not too short? Like Brano said, we all been talking about Gumrak and those hexagonal tiles. And one thing I know for sure, that screenshot is not from Gumrak. So we cant said the runaways are too short/wide, yet.
indiaciki Posted January 21, 2015 Author Posted January 21, 2015 Gumrak seems okay compared to most other airstrips...
Finkeren Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) The one thing that puzzles me about the airfields in BoS, is that every single one of them has paved runways and taxiing lanes. What happened to the war time fields that were little more than a cleared and relatively even field of grass, like we see in most wartime pics and vids from the Eastern Front? Edited January 23, 2015 by Finkeren
Brano Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Most probably simple grass airfields were not suitable for winter usage.Moreover during thaw and rainy weather they became unusable.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now