Grass deals dammages to planes?

[Alkyan]

I got the impression that taxing in the grass deals damage to the plane (principally the plane's tail). I'm not one hundred percent sure however :

- On one of my first flight in the new patch (with 109 F4), I taxied quite a lot in the high grass, a bit confused by the new physic. I took off, and later during a high speed dive my plane totally desintegrated. I was really surprised, although I was at high speed I think I was way below the 109 limit. I lost my tail, and one wing. Ailerons were still on.

- It happened one more time, I lost my tail during a zoom on a yack.

 

After that I rigorously sticked on the runways and been fine until my last flight (20 minutes ago). My plane spawned in the grass so I had to drive for like 5 meters in the grass to rejoin the taxiway. I lost again my tail in a dive.

 

I alway taxied carefully.

 

What do you think? Have I been unlucky and misinterpret the situation or others noticed the same thing?

 

 

[Trinkof]

Happened to me too : lost a F4 tai' twice, in 650km.h dive, without receiving shots or anything, except "off road" taxiing (but taking off on runaway) ... Strange.

 

Lost a E7 aileron also in flight with same "story"

[Sunde]

I'v also had this happen once. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I lost my tail in a snap roll. Also after taxiing over a little bit of grass. So i guess, "yes" to your question

[Falco_Peregrinus]

Nice feature if it is indeed confirmed 

[II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33]

How fast are you going during taxi? There are a lot of pot holes and they will cause damage if you hit them hard.

[Alkyan]

How fast are you going during taxi? There are a lot of pot holes and they will cause damage if you hit them hard.

 

Honestly quite slowly.. 

 

I thinks when your plane is damaged it comes with a sound of metal tearing (almost inaudible).

 

Stay away from the grass.

 

Edit : that's the revanche of the guys pissed off at people taking off in all the direction

Edited November 1, 2015 by Alkyan

[ACG_pezman]

Honestly quite slowly.. 

 

I thinks when your plane is damaged it comes with a sound of metal tearing (almost inaudible).

 

Stay away from the grass.

 

Edit : that's the revanche of the guys pissed off at people taking off in all the direction

Yes.  Yes it is.  And I think it is great.  Taxing should be no faster than a "brisk walk" but many people taxi much faster.

 

Now, considering all the times that some idiot who went to take off from the parking area has crashed into me, rammed me, or blown me up with a bomb load that exploded when they wrecked into a bunker or tree -  the issue of damage from grass seems kind of like poetic justice or karma at the very least.

 

Also, I think it might be only for German aircraft since Russian aircraft were designed to take the abuse that these unfinished airstrips would dole out.  I say this because I took off from the field in a Russian aircraft the other day (by accident) and was able to get airborne, fight, and land without suffering any damage.

[Feathered_IV]

I wondered if this was a German-only thing and cause for calls of Russian bias and partisan grass.

I hope the ground handling does not get dumbed down. I'm currently loving the way the aircraft handle and seeing everyone taxi out and queue for takeoff is an amazing sight.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Feathered_IV

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

its not the grass, the off road take offs, are very bumpy and is the surface more than likely causing it. When the back of the tail bounces up and down on the tail wheel.

[GridiroN]

This isn't new, this has always been a bug. Offroad taxi'ing, even driving slowly has always caused damage to the landing gear. I've lost missions before after landing because I tried to cut taxi'ing and just cross the 15m divide and had a wheel snap off from touching not-paved-runway.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Yes. Yes it is. And I think it is great. Taxing should be no faster than a "brisk walk" but many people taxi much faster.

 

Not really. I've seen a lot of planes taxiing at our grass strip and their (estimated) taxiing speeds go up to 15 km/h (even more when they have to clear the runway quickly. That includes taildraggers.

 

To OP:

Havent noticed anything like that yet. Would be helpful to have a video on that just to exclude human error (which can be involved in many ways).

Edited November 2, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[9./JG27golani79]

Didnt happen to me either - and although I taxi to and take off from the runway normally I have also tried "cross country" take offs on purpose without any problems regarding damage to the aircraft itself.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

I wondered if this was a German-only thing and cause for calls of Russian bias and partisan grass.

I hope the ground handling does not get dumbed down. I'm currently loving the way the aircraft handle and seeing everyone taxi out and queue for takeoff is an amazing sight.

 

 

Agreed.

[=EXPEND=Capt_Yorkshire]

yes i just lost the tail of my plane after about 10 minutes of flying i'm 99% sure i hadnt been damaged

[Trinkof]

Agreed also, ground handling is very nice even if a little bit overdone.

 

As for the partisan thing, well, I did not experienced that yet with Russian plane (yet?)

 

Problem is not that your aircraft can be damaged on the ground, this is a good feature! Problem is you can damage your aircraft even when being very gentle (I am allergic to the crazy taxi behaviour )

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Depends on the terrain. Considering the terrain outside the prepared strip is rough and filled with bumps, stones ect the handling presented ingame seems reasonably simulated.

 

There could be however a bigger difference in terrain physics based on terrain types as well as more smooth transitions from each zone. Example: Landing on a agrar field will have different effects on the aircraft (more friction, more softness -> better/more braking, better impact absorbtion) than grass field (harder, less friction -> less impact absorbtion, worse braking).

 

That's for sure critique on a higher level but seing BoS uses these physics in a great way and it's a well appreciated feauture I feel it deserves some more detail to it to make it even better.

[Cybermat47]

I wondered if this was a German-only thing and cause for calls of Russian bias and partisan grass.

Oh boy, I just love it when people accuse the developers of pro-Russian bias.

 

That's my favourite.

 

But seriously, I saw some of the grass reading Marx and Lenin's books, it's for really reals this time guys.

[KoN_]

I had taxi out first time AND lost taxi runway  end going across the grass , slowly , took off from runway ,later did a  snap roll ,and the aileron  came off  ,FW 190 .

Maybe the damage is caused  before take off , if so ,  its a cool feature , taxi ways i think should be wider or made more visible .

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

The only sad part about this delayed damage is that I don't get to watch the result.

It's quite entertaining when starting your plane on the airfield watching other planes go nose over from not using a taxiway, now I feel like I am missing out.

 

[Alkyan]

Well.. It is a bit unfair when you spawn in the grass and you get damaged during the few meters to rejoin the taxi way.

 

But it is fine to me.

 

On the other hand, I do think that the plane behavior with unlock tail wheel is weird. Why does the aircraft spin so easily and so much, it does not feel very physical. I might be wrong, I have absolutely no knowledge of 109 taxing behavior (but from my experience with the diamond Da20 which has a free wheel at the front, taxiing even quite quickly is easy using brakes).

[ACG_pezman]

Oh boy, I just love it when people accuse the developers of pro-Russian bias.

 

That's my favourite.

 

But seriously, I saw some of the grass reading Marx and Lenin's books, it's for really reals this time guys.

 

I know your joking but I think you and Feathered are right to be worried.  Russian aircraft were made to operate from un-improved landing strips.  German Luftwaffe aircraft I don't believe were made for that.  Case in point is the 109, just look at the gear.  I would say that wasn't designed for unimproved strips being so narrow and rigid. 

 

Now the amount of damage may be bugged, but damage being caused by rough terrian is more reasonable than not in my opinion, especially on German aircraft.  Durability has always been a cheif Russian design characteristic, just like the AK-47.  The Russian technology in this game may not be as good as the German's but it sure is tougher than the German's.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Thats false volcom. German aircraft were given just as much strebgh for the same reasons as the russians.

 

By the outbrake of WW2 the majority of german airfields were field strips. The fields captured in the early war in Poland and France were mostly fieldstrips as well, which is why the Luftwaffe had to deploy rugged aircraft capeable to operate under such circumstances from the very beginning.

 

The only thing the russian aircrafts are advantaged with is their wider landing gear.

 

The Fw 190 in particular was a way different approach than the 109 by design and had an overall very rugged fuselage and landing gear construction.

 

Infact the only german plane known for it's dangerous cosntruction deficit on the eastern front was the Fw-200, an airliner pressed into maritim recon and transport service. Some examples had issues with desintegrating tailsections due to hard landing impacts on the improvised airfields.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Scarecrow]

I saw an AI 109 shead it's tail the the other day. I'd only tickled it with the Yaks' MGs and the entire tail section came off.

[FuriousMeow]

Thats false volcom. German aircraft were given just as much strebgh for the same reasons as the russians.

 

 

 

The 109 was absolutely not made for sturdy landing gear to operate from airfields that weren't decently prepared. It's pilots had a hard enough time on well prepared fields, even the slightest bit of water and mud caused accidents on new unfamiliar fields.

Edited November 3, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Go ahead and give us some sources than. I don't know of any bf109 variant that had issues with it's undercarriage.

[9./JG27golani79]

The 109 was absolutely not made for sturdy landing gear to operate from airfields that weren't decently prepared. It's pilots had a hard enough time on well prepared fields, even the slightest bit of water and mud caused accidents on new unfamiliar fields.

 

And the windshield in your car doesn´t have a refractive index ..

 

The narrow undercarriage may have been dangerous and less than ideal but still the Luftwaffe also operated from unprepared airfields - and I doubt that they only used 190s there ..

 

 

[FuriousMeow]

Are we rewriting history here?

 

Because the 109 was absolutely notorious for having difficult ground handling characteristics due to its narrow canted landing gear and the wheels were significantly toed-out.

 

The War Diary of Helmut Lipfert tells of accidents on unprepared and inadequate airfields in 109s.

 

Or Eric Brown commenting on the 109's poor ground handling

 

I'll keep looking, since most of my books were donated due to a move and none of the ones I have now are dogeared.

 

Even WWI aircraft required fields to be prepared, unless the grass fields were gone over, cleared and deemed to be flat. Those aircraft had narrow gear, canted wheels, but lacked toeing of the wheels, and they were difficult to land. The Fokker Dr1 has wing guards to prevent damage to it when landing due to the ability to easily tip over. There are many WWI aircraft, with landing gear configurations similar to the 109 that would ground loop easily.

 

Unprepared fields just means they weren't laid down with Marsten matting, or concrete. But they were still gone over to insure that various objects were absent - like large rocks, boulders, tree stumps, etc. And also that there weren't burrows strewn about or other various objects that would ruin the day of just about any airplane.

 

By the by Golani, only the mentally deficient keep going on about the absence of refraction that was only stated by one individual. Only one very special individual said I didn't believe in it, and it wasn't me. Incidentally, the only visual evidence of such severe refraction was a 190D-13 which had an armored glass thickness at least twice that of late A (as in the  A-7/8) models. Not to mention the 190A models were well remarked for their great forward view due to the nose down angle incidence the plane cruised at, not once has it ever been presented the armored glass allowed even further view down forward in the A models. But yes, measuring refraction in my vehicle's windscreen will yield a value so ridiculously low that it would be pointless to even try. It is very thin, and almost completely vertical. I'm still wondering why the 190A's nose down attitude was praised in level flight, but there is zero mention of the armored glass allowing such great view as to allow amazing view and lead shooting over the nose.. Guess that's one of the things left to the mystery of history, or to those that want to re-write it.

Edited November 4, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Seing you are going senselessly off topic (the narrow gear of the 109 was never meant to be dicsussed nor refraction) I get you can't prove it. Fine than.

[9./JG27golani79]

@Meow

 

No one wants to rewrite history and no one ever said the undercarriage of the 109 is the best thing for doing landings / take offs on rough fields.

Still it´s possible ...

 

And regarding the refraction which by the way was just an allusion from my side - nice to see that you need to fall back on insults ..

If I´m not mistaken (and I´m most certainly not) it was you in the end who denied that there was a drop in his windshield .. and yeah .. not much left to say there so sorry if I´m taking your comments about accuracy of certain things or rewriting history with a grain of salt ..

 

nuff said ..

Edited November 4, 2015 by 9./JG27golani79

[Dakpilot]

" In early 1943, the Gustav started getting slower. The Messerschmitt had long tended to dig its wheels in on grass strips, which was now addressed by wider, larger diameter main wheels and a bigger, non-retractable tail wheel. The big wheels demanded bulges in the wings which, along with the exposed tail wheel, added drag.​"

 

Just a comment on why the Wheels on the Gustav were deemed necessary for re-design

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Just experienced this issue myself on WOL.

 

There is an airfield on Veluki Luki that does not seem to have any prepared surface for you spawn on - Izitsa. (Airfield was Incorrectly labelled Kochegarovo? on this particular WOL multiplayer map). The aircraft spawn areas are covered in deep snow without taxiways.

 

I attempted twice to get to the runway very cautiously. The first time I heard the metallic crunch when a wing snaps but could not see any visible damage - so I respawned. The second time again it happened (same crunch noise but almost masked by other noises at the time), I took off from the runway anyway and the plane felt fine - but as soon as I managed to stress the air-frame with reasonable G force, the tail section gave way.

 

Airfield is on sector 123-9.  You can load it in the quick mission editor and experience it yourself.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Tripwire

[Cybermat47]

As I understand it, the 109 had poor ground handling, with the landing gear prone to breaking (the 190 was far superior in this regard).

 

That said, I don't think anyone here is trying to rewrite history (and if they are, it's a rather odd way to do it).

[Dakpilot]

Not that it is excatly related to the plausible bug of a short taxi damaging the tail, most likely just a 'factor' being overloaded momentarily while taxiing 'off piste'

 

But the 109 did in fact have a weak tail structure (comparatively) due to its advanced lightweight structure, and there were many reports of  pilots losing wings and tail sections,  Including leading ace, Hauptman Balthasar, the Kommandant of the Richtoffen Geshwader in an F4. It was a joke in the Luftwaffe that if a Focke-Wulf component failed they would strengthen it, whereas if a Messerschmitt component survived they would lighten it

 

There is also the misunderstood Trim of the 109, When trimmed to fly neutrally in level flight, the 109 resisted being held in a dive and required heavy forward stick pressure to stop it pulling up. On the other hand, if it was trimmed to fly hands-off in the dive an enormous force was needed to pull it out, 109 had more down elevator movement compared to most A/C, traceable back to its predecessor Bf108

 

I think in game a lot of people will trim in the dive and use excess force when recovering, also harming performance/energy retention by pulling to much G, easily done with the effective controls..

 

Or maybe i'm wrong

 

Cheers Dakpilot