Isnt radiator or oil damage a bit over done?

[SCG_motoadve]

Im liking BOM an observation I have.

Almost every hit gets the radiator's enemy easily, or oil loss and gets them smoking instantly Im talking a second burst or mini burst hit.

I do like the effect its nicely done, but after playing a bit every time I hit the enemy it does the same almost every single time.

Do not think is realistic, that this happens every time I hit the enemy.

 

Also seems the ammo is too powerfull or planes too fragil, and Im using the Rata with just machine guns.

Expert level (most realistic).

 

Usually fighting against 109s and 110s.

 

 

[seafireliv]

Im liking BOM an observation I have.

Almost every hit gets the radiator's enemy easily, or oil loss and gets them smoking instantly Im talking a second burst or mini burst hit.

I do like the effect its nicely done, but after playing a bit every time I hit the enemy it does the same almost every single time.

Do not think is realistic, that this happens every time I hit the enemy.

 

Also seems the ammo is too powerfull or planes too fragil, and Im using the Rata with just machine guns.

Expert level (most realistic).

 

Usually fighting against 109s and 110s.

 

 

It`s a mistake to think something is wrong simply on what you `think`. Often you`ll find the reality is very much not what we `think`. I used to make that mistake.

[SCG_motoadve]

If you Look at real gun camera footage and its not like this every single time.

[Gambit21]

It`s a mistake to think something is wrong simply on what you `think`. Often you`ll find the reality is very much not what we `think`. I used to make that mistake.

 

I think he's just saying that based on the data/info he currently has, he's wondering about the frequency of oil or radiator smoke immediately after a hit is scored.

We all form opinions or questions based on what we think and what our current understanding is.

[seafireliv]

Gun cam footage is not a reliable indicater. First:

 

1. You need to view all the gun cam footage (a few hundred).

 

2. Then compare which are leaking fuel, smoke to those that are not.

 

3. Then compare that to the amount of aircraft you see leaking fuel ingame.

 

Personally, it does not seem a problem to me as yet.

 

As for the Rata I16 guns seeming too powerful, that aircraft had some of best guns at the start of the war- As long as you hit.

Edited June 14, 2016 by seafireliv

[Jade_Monkey]

Often the opposite is also true. VVS planes dont leak anything after a few decent shots.

It's all about where the shots land.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Im liking BOM an observation I have.

Almost every hit gets the radiator's enemy easily, or oil loss and gets them smoking instantly Im talking a second burst or mini burst hit.

I do like the effect its nicely done, but after playing a bit every time I hit the enemy it does the same almost every single time.

Do not think is realistic, that this happens every time I hit the enemy.

 

Also seems the ammo is too powerfull or planes too fragil, and Im using the Rata with just machine guns.

Expert level (most realistic).

 

Usually fighting against 109s and 110s.

 

Seems right to me. That's what I think... And that's the problem with thinking. Unless we have some good data its all just in the wind.

 

The game does some pretty serious calculations on bullet velocity, angle, as well as the material thickness that its hitting. It may not be perfect but the DM here is far better than the quirky one that IL-2: Forgotten Battles/1946 had.

[SCG_motoadve]

How would you compare it to the damage model of Cliffs of Dover (the modded version)?

[LukeFF]

 

 

How would you compare it to the damage model of Cliffs of Dover (the modded version)?

 

Honestly, who cares? Let the merits of BoS stand on its own. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

That's my issue almost every second flight. I go for the bombers, I got hit in the nose and its always engine/oil/cooling damage. I'd need to buy a decent deflector shield and place it in front of my aircraft ^^

 

But to give you an indication motoadvemotoadve, though from a different theater of war I can quote this:

 

Americans studied the vulnerability of their aircraft. In a USAAF study conducted late in the Pacific War it was reported that fire was involved in 59 % of the aircraft lost. Smoke was observed in an additional 13 %. In a US Navy study of 501 single engine aircraft damaged in air to air combat from September 1944 to August 1945 the most common form of damage was to the aircraft structure (215) but nearly 90 % of the aircraft suffering such damage returned to base. In contrast of 57 aircraft suffering damage to oil or fuel systems only 18 % survived. Strikes in the cockpit hitting the pilot or controls resulted in only about 25 % of the aircraft surviving. This was the second most common form of damage. Damage to the engine or hydraulic system resulted in losses about 60 % of the time but was less common. A variety of other forms of damage caused relatively few losses.
 

Data from the American studies suggest that, despite self-sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor, fuel tanks and the pilot remained the most vulnerable areas on American aircraft. The American studies also tend to confirm the Japanese report that American fuel tanks were vulnerable to Japanese incendiary fire. (...)
 

In the US Navy study about 38 % of all aircraft receiving damage were lost. About 30 % of the aircraft damaged received damage to the most vulnerable areas and accounted for 63 % of the losses. In contrast only 19% of the single engine Japanese aircraft damaged in 1941 Hawaii operation were lost. At least some of the Japanese aircraft returning to their carriers in a damaged condition had received hits in the fuel tank or cockpit area. During the Midway operation Japanese aircraft also survived similar damage. Losses among aircraft of the Japanese navy's 25th Air Flotilla from April to November 1942 amounted to 30% of all aircraft damaged, less than the loss ratio of aircraft in the US Navy study covering late 1944 and 1945. About twice as many Japanese aircraft were damaged in air combat compared to anti-aircraft fore (US Navy study was limited to damage in air-to-air combat). This data suggests American aircraft may have been about as vulnerable to Japanese aircraft fire at the end of the war as Japanese aircraft had been to Allied fire at the beginning of the war. This in turn suggests that the lethality of aircraft armament and ammunition eventually kept pace with and outstripped aircraft defenses.

Source: "Exploding fuel tanks (...)" by R. L. Dunn, page 140.

 

What that indicates (as much as such study can indicate) is that most common form of damage was to the aircraft structure (airframe), but it was also least effective in cause of aircraft loss. Contrary to that, while less common form of damage, any hits affecting fuel or oil systems or engine itself would lead most likely to the aircraft loss. 

 

But I think you should provide more data of your experiences. Speaking of mine only, I can admit that I'm so often leaking fuel, oil or coolant that its hard to count. 

[SCG_motoadve]

So is this the kind of community no one can say an opinion about anything because people are over defensive ?

Hope not!

Some replies are a bit defensive, I know you like BOM , me too.

 

Would be nicer something like

Well the 109s were fragile if you shot the wings the radiator will get punctured or something like that.

 

Been flight simming for 20 plus years and Im also a real pilot who flies a lot usually this communities are great, so hope this one too .

The sense of flight in BOM its the best by the way IMHO.

That's my issue almost every second flight. I go for the bombers, I got hit in the nose and its always engine/oil/cooling damage. I'd need to buy a decent deflector shield and place it in front of my aircraft ^^

 

But to give you an indication motoadvemotoadve, though from a different theater of war I can quote this:

Source: "Exploding fuel tanks (...)" by R. L. Dunn, page 140.

 

What that indicates (as much as such study can indicate) is that most common form of damage was to the aircraft structure (airframe), but it was also least effective in cause of aircraft loss. Contrary to that, while less common form of damage, any hits affecting fuel or oil systems or engine itself would lead most likely to the aircraft loss. 

 

But I think you should provide more data of your experiences. Speaking of mine only, I can admit that I'm so often leaking fuel, oil or coolant that its hard to count. 

 

 

Thanks for that info , that is exactly the kind of discussion Im talking about its nice to have.

Everyone can always learn something.

[KoN_]

In some respects i agree with you , would be nice to have just structure damage and limp home and land ` i find the LW far too easy too bring down few hits and its all over for them  , But i do find 90% of the time the engine will be hit even from behind a good six o`clock .

If you want too fly with hits and still make it back home fly Russian , i am sure this will upset some people but the truth is out there .

Flown many times both sides . If i get behind  a 109 or 190 `or a 110 ,  i know that nine times out of ten they wont make it home .  

Its a bit arcadish but i still enjoy the game . 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

That's placebo, Con.

 

I've damaged way more aircraft than I've shot down. Nearly every time I sit right behind a Bf-109 and get a shot all I get is a flimsy fuel leak and an angry enemy. Last Thursday we were chasing a pair of Bf-110s in LaGG-3s and one took five minutes to bring down while the other made it home despite behind constantly hit for a good two minutes as well.

 

Of course some aircraft are sturdier than others though. The Fw-190, La-5 and LaGG-3 are tanks, and in the latter I only ever die if the control cables are severed, otherwise they remain controllable in nearly all instances. The Yak-1 and Bf-109 feel far flimsier owning to their design goals of being light aircraft. I haven't got shot at enough times in the I-16 to have an opinion, but the MiG-3 is very susceptible to catastrophic oil leaks particularly when attacking bombers. Structurally speaking it can take a hit or two but beyond that you're a goner.

 

The developers have stated that since there is no concrete information on damage resistance, all in-line engines have durability X and all radials have 2X.

[Yogiflight]

I think the effect of the german `Minengeschosse`is a bit low. Remember, in average 20 hits were enough to bring a 4mot bomber down.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Lucas, you mind if I ask what coolant used Soviet engines ? Was it pure water or like British/American aircraft, a glycol ? 

[Dakpilot]

Consider that a WWII aircraft oil or water radiator is not much more sturdy than what we have in our current cars

 

most of them were completely unprotected, flowing a lot of oil or water

 

 

with high rate of fire, high velocity rifle calibre rounds flying about, it is surprising to me that there are not more instances of damage,  before you consider results of cannon hits

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Not sure Hiromachi, Brano might know.

 

The Klimov M-103 used water for sure (except the M-103G, which used glycol), but I've seen sources listing the M-105PF as using glycol while others mention water. I believe the AM-35A and AM-38 used water.

 

Dakpilot's point is particularly important though - a high-velocity 7.62mm or 12.7mm round fired at close range will do a lot of damage to whatever is in its way. Considering how little armour went into these aircraft and the cramped arrangement of important parts, it's no surprise that a good burst will send an engine packing. Take a look at this drawing for example. From halfway through the fuselage onwards, between the wing roots, any single bullet is likely to hit the engine, the oil radiators, the liquid radiators, the fuel tank or the pilot. If you get close and from behind, a bullet will easily travel through the tail and can hit a critical area.

 

 

EDIT: When taking on heavies with light armament I've recently resorted to shooting right at the elevators, particularly the He-111. If you destroy them or break the control cables then it's game over.

Edited June 14, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

The Klimov M-103 used water for sure (except the M-103G, which used glycol), but I've seen sources listing the M-105PF as using glycol while others mention water. I believe the AM-35A and AM-38 used water.

Glycol adds to the flammability of the aircraft, so thats why I'm asking.

 

 

 

Dakpilot's point is particularly important though - a high-velocity 7.62mm or 12.7mm round fired at close range will do a lot of damage to whatever is in its way. Considering how little armour went into these aircraft and the cramped arrangement of important parts, it's no surprise that a good burst will send an engine packing. Take a look at this drawing for example. From halfway through the fuselage onwards, between the wing roots, any single bullet is likely to hit the engine, the oil radiators, the liquid radiators, the fuel tank or the pilot. If you get close and from behind, a bullet will easily travel through the tail and can hit a critical area.

Maybe. But on the other hand there is plenty of evidence with rifle caliber rounds being deflected just by aircraft skin due to low striking angle, or getting stuck in engine cylinders or radiator fins. For example many aircraft coming back from Pearl Harbor attack had .303 caliber rounds embedded in the cylinders of their engines having done no serious damage. Other story is of course 12.7 mm Berezin, that thing is just deadly.  

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

That probably depends on the angle, distance and so on - from anything further than 300m a rifle round should be useless I assume, but from up close it should be dangerous enough against thin armour plates.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I actually have some British study when they targeted 109. Will later try to get something useful out of there. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Please share it whenever you can, I tried finding this but to no avail.

 

One thing to keep in mind (particularly with the ShKAS) is the rate of fire. 1800/minute is a lot of lead tossed forward.

[JtD]

M105 used water.

 

The British fired 0.30 at a 109 from the front and it showed a high effectiveness of the gun - engine systems, cooling, pilot (no armoured wind shield) all proved vulnerable.

The British also fired a 0.50 at a 190 from behind and found it pretty much useless, with a very low probability of achieving disabling hits.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Thanks, JtD

 

Two questions: did they fire at the Bf-109 from behind, and at the Fw-190 from the front? Also, is there information on the distance the rounds were fired from?

[ShamrockOneFive]

So is this the kind of community no one can say an opinion about anything because people are over defensive ?

Hope not!

Some replies are a bit defensive, I know you like BOM , me too.

 

Would be nicer something like

Well the 109s were fragile if you shot the wings the radiator will get punctured or something like that.

 

Been flight simming for 20 plus years and Im also a real pilot who flies a lot usually this communities are great, so hope this one too .

The sense of flight in BOM its the best by the way IMHO.

 

 

Thanks for that info , that is exactly the kind of discussion Im talking about its nice to have.

Everyone can always learn something.

 

It's kind of an academic community - A good discussion involves data, sources, tables and the like. The kind of evidence that is needed to affect change. Opinions are, IMHO, overrated. Everyone has one and egos and the like make it impossible to cut into the really good discussions that have real information that we can talk about.

 

Hiromachi posted some great information and maybe the best way to suggest if this game has an issue with damage modelling or not is to go and do some testing. See if it matches reasonably well with the historical document.

 

A couple of ways it could be done. Keep a detailed log of every aircraft attack where you scored hits and tally the information. Its a kind of qualitative/quantitative hybrid of your experience. Or you can setup some friendly aircraft, position yourself and conduct weapon tests and do a repeat of the damage encountered in a rigorous way.

 

I don't trust people (myself included) to have accurate perceptions. All humans have a variety of cognitive bias that are difficult to overcome. It may seem like every aircraft you hit gets a fuel leak or a radiator hit but that may (and is likely) not a very accurate accounting. You noticed a lot of instances where this happens so now it seems like every time it did even if it didn't. Positive information is stored and negative information is ignored. Everyone does this. It's like when you buy a new car and suddenly it seems like everyone has the same car as you (note: does not apply if you buy fancy exotic cars ).

 

I did a bit of a search around and its difficult to find specific effectiveness testing. The gold standard for me is Anthony Williams work on collecting data and doing calculations on types of World War II aircraft guns. That work is available here: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm It doesn't answer the question here but it does give an excellent accounting of relative strengths of different aircraft armaments.

[JtD]

Two questions: did they fire at the Bf-109 from behind, and at the Fw-190 from the front? Also, is there information on the distance the rounds were fired from?

I did a quick look at my sources but can't answer because I can't find the tests. It looks like it's high time I tidy up again. I'd guess the British did more tests, but I haven't seen them and I'd guess the firing distance was to simulate short combat distances, maybe 200..300 yards. But really, just guessing.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I did a quick look at my sources but can't answer because I can't find the tests. It looks like it's high time I tidy up again. I'd guess the British did more tests, but I haven't seen them and I'd guess the firing distance was to simulate short combat distances, maybe 200..300 yards. But really, just guessing.

 

Most likely, thanks either way I'm happy the ammo explosions have been implemented because that's the only way I can get rid of a Fw-190 from behind these days, it really feels like firing onto a Pz IV.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Would not any liquid cooled aircraft operated in winter time need some form of anti freeze in it's cooling system?  

 

My knowledge comes from the automotive side, as I work in a small automobile museum.   In the days before glycol was used a mix of alcohol and water provided anti freezing protection, but at a cost, this mixture was highly corrosive and had to be flushed every spring and replaced with 100% water.

 

When ethylene glycol was introduced as a freeze protecting agent you no longer had to drain your system every year as the glycol mix is not corrosive.  Hence the misnomer "permanent antifreeze" that was applied to the first commercial brand for automotive use, Prestone.

 

So I'm thinking that since the use of glycol was pioneered by aviation, that most aircraft after a certain point would have a water/glycol mix, regardless.  I know this became US practice.

 

Another benefit to using glycol in the cooling system is that it actually enhances the ability of water to transfer heat when used in a 50/50 or so mix with water, and it raises the boiling point as well.

Edited June 15, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[KoN_]

That's placebo, Con.

 

I've damaged way more aircraft than I've shot down. Nearly every time I sit right behind a Bf-109 and get a shot all I get is a flimsy fuel leak and an angry enemy. Last Thursday we were chasing a pair of Bf-110s in LaGG-3s and one took five minutes to bring down while the other made it home despite behind constantly hit for a good two minutes as well.

 

Of course some aircraft are sturdier than others though. The Fw-190, La-5 and LaGG-3 are tanks, and in the latter I only ever die if the control cables are severed, otherwise they remain controllable in nearly all instances. The Yak-1 and Bf-109 feel far flimsier owning to their design goals of being light aircraft. I haven't got shot at enough times in the I-16 to have an opinion, but the MiG-3 is very susceptible to catastrophic oil leaks particularly when attacking bombers. Structurally speaking it can take a hit or two but beyond that you're a goner.

 

The developers have stated that since there is no concrete information on damage resistance, all in-line engines have durability X and all radials have 2X.

Maybe i need some time back in the VVs  cockpit . i find the 190 the weakest ` i find in all encounters with the 190 that the engine goes or the instant kill  . The hardest i find to bring down is the Pe-2.

All of this is online of course . 

Edited June 15, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It's a weird thing, I just flew two campaign missions in the MiG-3 and in both I came too close to Ju-88s, took three or four 7.92mm rounds and off went the engine sputtering before quitting. The first time I was at 300m and smashed into a treeline, while the second I cut the engine and glided home safely.

 

Probably the rule of thumb goes that if you're flying it the aircraft falls apart, but if you're shooting at it, good luck bringing it down

[MadisonV44]

Maybe i need some time back in the VVs  cockpit . i find the 190 the weakest ` i find in all encounters with the 190 that the engine goes or the instant kill  . The hardest i find to bring down is the Pe-2.

All of this is online of course . 

 +1 

One of the weakest engine of the game. 

Should not be the case with such a robust and most reputable radial engine.

My favorite bird of WWII but definitely the punching bag of this sim. 

[Brano]

Would not any liquid cooled aircraft operated in winter time need some form of anti freeze in it's cooling system?

.

Soviets used antifreeze in their water filled system.They were not neanderthals

[BlitzPig_EL]

Brano, never thought they were.

[Sokol1]

So is this the kind of community no one can say an opinion about anything because people are over defensive ?

 

As seems that you come late for the "party", yes, is in this way since the very begin. 

 

"You are wrong, the flight games that your are used to play are wrong, the books that you read are wrong, the documentaries that you watch wrong (well, these always are), ah, and WWII pilots accounts are just anecdotes." 

 

So, don't bother with this and have fun.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Sokol1

[216th_Jordan]

 +1 

One of the weakest engine of the game. 

Should not be the case with such a robust and most reputable radial engine.

My favorite bird of WWII but definitely the punching bag of this sim. 

 

Devs said that they have no real evidence of how durable radials are compared to inline engines but they said that they assumed factor 2 so radials are twice as durable as inline engines but that won't help you if a 12.7 mm berezin round stikes from up close.

[ShamrockOneFive]

It's a weird thing, I just flew two campaign missions in the MiG-3 and in both I came too close to Ju-88s, took three or four 7.92mm rounds and off went the engine sputtering before quitting. The first time I was at 300m and smashed into a treeline, while the second I cut the engine and glided home safely.

 

Probably the rule of thumb goes that if you're flying it the aircraft falls apart, but if you're shooting at it, good luck bringing it down

 

LOL that is precisely the case :D

[wtornado]

Would not any liquid cooled aircraft operated in winter time need some form of anti freeze in it's cooling system?  

 

My knowledge comes from the automotive side, as I work in a small automobile museum.   In the days before glycol was used a mix of alcohol and water provided anti freezing protection, but at a cost, this mixture was highly corrosive and had to be flushed every spring and replaced with 100% water.

 

When ethylene glycol was introduced as a freeze protecting agent you no longer had to drain your system every year as the glycol mix is not corrosive.  Hence the misnomer "permanent antifreeze" that was applied to the first commercial brand for automotive use, Prestone.

 

So I'm thinking that since the use of glycol was pioneered by aviation, that most aircraft after a certain point would have a water/glycol mix, regardless.  I know this became US practice.

 

Another benefit to using glycol in the cooling system is that it actually enhances the ability of water to transfer heat when used in a 50/50 or so mix with water, and it raises the boiling point as well.

In Canada here I run my car 60% anti-freeze and 40% water to up to -40C and at -40C it is slush you have to warm the car a minimum of 10 mins before even thinking of moving.

 

No anti-freeze your coolant pipes are the first thing to go and if you are really unlucky you split the head.

 

@@motoadve Many are on the defensive there are a lot of issues with the game. lol

Edited June 15, 2016 by WTornado

[Brano]

Glycol is antifreeze itself. Best ratio is around 60% glycol and 40% water. With this mixture it should freeze at minus 50°C.

If you would use pure glycol in your system,it will freeze at around minus 12°C.

[wtornado]

Glycol is antifreeze itself. Best ratio is around 60% glycol and 40% water. With this mixture it should freeze at minus 50°C.

If you would use pure glycol in your system,it will freeze at around minus 12°C.

When I was young (sniff sniff cry*) in the early 1983 we would put pure Glycol in our Racing Moto Crosses like our YZ, RM and KX  2 stroke engines due to the

high heat exchange and racing at high revs in 30C weather to prevent boil over.

 

I feel old now my oldest son keeps on reminding me that i am.

[Cpt_Cool]

 +1 

One of the weakest engine of the game. 

Should not be the case with such a robust and most reputable radial engine.

My favorite bird of WWII but definitely the punching bag of this sim. 

 

Have you flown the P-40 by chance? I would give that one the punching bag award.

[Jade_Monkey]

Other than actually being really slow in some circumstances, it doesn't translate the sensation of speed when it's actually going fast.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Jade_Monkey