Isnt radiator or oil damage a bit over done?

[MadisonV44]

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.

 

Whatever the enemy aim I have the feeling that it always blow out my engine, and my engine only. 

[MadisonV44]

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

 

My second favorite plane (I don't fly her on BOS, but was one of my favorite in 46)

The two back sheep of the family

[KoN_]

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?

Good question there . 

[KoN_]

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.

 `Its doesn't matter nothing is going too change . i can see from servers list DED expert that the 190 isn't getting flown as much as it once was . **

Edited June 18, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[216th_Jordan]

 `Its doesn't matter nothing is going too change . i can see from servers list DED expert that the 190 isn't getting flown as much as it once was . **

 

Sure, you would need to be a pair to excel in a 190 and be safe.

[ACG_daffy_]

The VAST majority of aerial combat kills in WWII were the result of pretty steadily aimed, straight on shooting.  A good victory...as was the case statistically in WWII...was the one where the enemy had no idea you were even back there until their cockpit was filled with smoke and fire.  It would go naturally I think that many gun cam footage clips would show critical damage upon a burst or two.  My opinion.  

 

What we do here, on these sims with all the yanking and banking and deflection shooting...most Aces in the real world...would say to be sloppy, and unprepared entrance into the fight!  lol  So, I think that the smoke effect is OK, and yeah, I think a radiator or oil pan would probably not do so well against big bullets.  

[Mac_Messer]

Whatever the enemy aim I have the feeling that it always blow out my engine, and my engine only. 

A matter of perspective. As I fly the 109 almost exclusively, the 190 reminds me of a tank. Been hit from behind and forward and got only few instant engine deaths but I was able to get home most of the time. Since I tried the Soviet crates, going against bombers in the FW190 feels really safe. It reminds me most of the P47 cuz it can take heavy punishment but lacks somewhat in fighter to fighter engagements.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

That's how I feel about it as well. It's up there with the LaGG-3 and La-5 in terms of durability, and it packs the firepower to mow down anything in its path. 

[Fern]

The VAST majority of aerial combat kills in WWII were the result of pretty steadily aimed, straight on shooting.  A good victory...as was the case statistically in WWII...was the one where the enemy had no idea you were even back there until their cockpit was filled with smoke and fire.  It would go naturally I think that many gun cam footage clips would show critical damage upon a burst or two.  My opinion.  

 

What we do here, on these sims with all the yanking and banking and deflection shooting...most Aces in the real world...would say to be sloppy, and unprepared entrance into the fight!  lol  So, I think that the smoke effect is OK, and yeah, I think a radiator or oil pan would probably not do so well against big bullets.  

 

 

Hard to sneak up on people that have icons on for those straight on shots.

 

Anyways, I've been doing some reading about the radiators on the 109s. And here's what I found below. These radiator shutoff valves should become an unlock. This will prevent all the coolant being leaked out in the 109s and the engine overheating. This could offset the beastly VVS planes.

 

 

BF-109G yellow are the shut off vavles. G had two and F had one? 

Bf-109 F

 

a lot of effort was invested in the new F model with an eye towards maximum aerodynamic efficiency, balanced against the cooling requirements of the high performance DB601 engine.  To that end, an entirely new coolant system was designed for the F, with a number of important changes:

 

-    The single, vulnerable coolant tank behind the spinner baseplate was replaced with a 38.6 liter oil tank, and two small coolant tanks were mounted on either side of the engine crankcase.

 

-    The radiators were lengthened and made more shallow, as discussed previously, as part of the drag reduction program.  In addition, the feed and return lines were moved to the same side of the unit to facilitate ease of repair.

 

-    The feed and supply routes were roughly the same as before; however, a feature not shown in the diagram below was the provision for fitting individual radiator shutoff valves in the feed tube to each radiator in order to shut one off in the event of combat damage.  Somehow, this never became a standard factory fit and these became highly prized items in the field (for obvious reasons!).

 

 

The coolant system remained largely unchanged from the F on through the K models.

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by Fern

[JG13_opcode]

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

 

CLOD is a joke, and always will be.

[JG13_opcode]

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 . 

 

 

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.

 

+1, it's perception bias for sure.

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.

 

Well you know what they say about opinions, right?

 

If you want to persuade people around here you need to have something to back your statements up, because if you stick around these forums for long enough you'll find that many people *feel* that their favourite aircraft (or even their favourite air force) should be a certain way because the game does not conform to their *feelings*.  Feelings don't and shouldn't matter when it comes to recreating history.

 

It goes back to the very beginning of the IL-2 series.  Deltawood, green lasers of death, P-51 won the war, 190 is porked, APIT ammo in US fighters, you is wrong be sure.

[KoN_]

CLOD is a joke, and always will be.

Quite a statement considering the MOD community have done a fine job to actually bring us a decent flight sim and in their spare time with no pay too their efforts . 

[Yogiflight]

As he stated in his post above "Well you know what they say about opinions, right?"

[SCG_motoadve]

CLOD is a joke, and always will be.

CLOD was a joke, not anymore,lots of effort has been put into it by TF, and they keep working on it, they try to make it as realistic as possible.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

What was the source of that quote Fern?

 

Can't tell you how many times I would have made use of that coolant shutoff valve if I had one fitted.  Someone just blinks at my 109 and it ends up with a coolant leak.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Just don't get confused between fuel and radiators leak. Fuel is gray and happens pretty often. Radiators fluid is snow white in game and it is not so frequent as fuel leak.

Edited July 23, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[Yogiflight]

IIRC Devs stated somewhere the radiator damage model is to be improved, and they are planning to do so. I think at the moment it doesn´t matter, which radiator gets hit, it is always the same side loosing the coolant. Hopefully they will also implement the shut off valve.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Fuel leaks I'm ok with as I usually have 100% fuel load and am able to rtb after monitoring the leak. Coolant leak usually means RTB immediately and you *might* make it back with a deadstick landing. Stay fighting and your plane won't be returning.

 

I'm not suggesting a shutoff valve would let you stay and fight, but it might mean you can at least rtb with powered flight.

[1Sascha]

Just don't get confused between fuel and radiators leak. Fuel is gray and happens pretty often. Radiators fluid is snow white in game and it is not so frequent as fuel leak.

Gotta say that most of the leaks I sustain are fuel. Followed by damage to the oil-system or simple, "generic" engine hits ("First/Second Engine damaged").

 

I only rarely get coolant leaks in any of the inline-equipped LW-planes. Well... except for the He 111 probably.

 

The perceived fragility of some of the planes is a bit weird at times, though. Especially in the 190 which had a reputation for being more durable than the 109 all around (not just WRT the engine and its sub-systems). You can test this pretty easily by doing a Pe-2 intercept mission and creeping up on the bombers' six. A lot of times, a single hit from the gunners will either kill my engine completely, cause such catastrophic failure to subsystems that the engine will quit within the next 30 - 60 seconds or kill my pilot instantly. Although in this scenario, exaggerated ("super-human") accuracy of the AI-gunners might also be a factor.

 

Thing is with any radial engined plane, that they generally *were* better at taking punishment than inlines.

 

- Basically, you're sitting behind a pretty thick "shield" of cast iron/aluminium. There were instances (on both sides of the war) of radial engined fighters RTBing with whole cylinders shot off.

- On the 190, you also have an armored "ring" all around the nose, protecting the oil-cooler.

- no "plumbing" for liquid cooling to worry about - and no fear of getting a puncture and losing your coolant. Inline with punctured coolant-system = dead engine within minutes.

 

I seem to remember that a lot of these advantages radials have over inlines were a factor in the US Navy having nothing but radial engined planes for carrier ops.

[MadisonV44]

+1

 

The reputation of the radials for being more durable is something we can check everywhere and the fragility gap between inline & radial should be increased to reflect this.

 

When I was exclusively flying the FW-190, I confirm that my engine was killed instantly pretty often (even with safe angles and applying best practice)

In addition, despite a huge engine and pilot well protected behind it I was killed also a large amount of times.

[KoN_]

Ive brought these things up many times about the 190 and the instant kill factor and the poor engine `  its just a circle  , your get the same answer . 

 

Now that the two games are now finished and near final release ` maybe we will see some FM changes . 

Edited July 24, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[SCG_motoadve]

Im flying the russian planes and having more fun now.

They behave more realistic,and are more durable.

[MadisonV44]

Im flying the russian planes and having more fun now.

They behave more realistic,and are more durable.

 

All is said there ... 

thanks

[Dakpilot]

The Dev's have said multiple times that the "engine strength" for La-5 and FW190 are identical, the inline engines were also discussed by dev's

 

There have been many threads discussing the damage effects of a stream of 50 cal, a single 50 cal and cannon damage

 

There may be many anecdotes(and very true stories) that Radials have 'survived' hits, but there were also very many shot down,but the percentages which have brought the 'legend' are tiny, and of course the most talked/written about

 

And this is coming from a 'round engine fanboy', I spent a lot of my career flying them, maintaining and rebuilding them

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[[CPT]milopugdog]

IIRC Devs stated somewhere the radiator damage model is to be improved, and they are planning to do so. I think at the moment it doesn´t matter, which radiator gets hit, it is always the same side loosing the coolant. Hopefully they will also implement the shut off valve.

I though the quote said it was only on some aircraft?

[Yogiflight]

Yep, you are right. DD120 says only Bf109F4/G2 and Ju87 have the problem, that always the left radiator leaks, no matter which one was hit.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Maybe radials should be x3.

[1Sascha]

Maybe I'm being a bit too simplistic here, but:

 

If you're going to hit certain parts of an inline-engine, chances are that the whole engine will suffer as a result. Like, say, hitting the camshaft or camshaft-drive.

 

In a radial, each cylinder has its own head, so damage to that part will only affect the cylinder in question.

 

Plus the obvious absence of parts related to liquid cooling. A part that isn't there on an airplane can't break or take damage.. :D

 

 

There must've been a reason why all air forces used radials despite some of their shortcomings (bulky, cooling-issues, inability to use anything but a two-valves-per cylinder setup, etc).

 

There also must be a reason why the USN and the IJN used nothing but radials in their planes. IMO this more than anything speaks volumes about the radial's strengths: If you're going to fly over the ocean for hours on end, you'll want the most rugged and dependable engine there is. Or why the Germans adopted the 190 to the "Sturmbock"-role to get up close and personal with large bomber-formations *and* for the CAS-role (F/G models) - albeit both with much improved armor for the engine, weapons/ammo and the pilot. 

 

*shrug*

 

Without the ability to look "into the bowels" of the DM, it's hard to tell what's going on when engines get damaged/killed. Thus pretty much every instance of me losing an engine in the game is nothing more than "anecdotal" - since I have no idea what exactly went on and how/why my engine got damaged or killed.

 

 

 

 

S.

[Dakpilot]

One of the main advantages of a Radial vis reliability and use in Naval aviation of the time, is the lack of a cooling system, to a degree, a single rifle calibre bullet can cause the end of the engine with a liquid cooled system, not a good thing when hundreds of miles of ocean need to be covered from combat zone to home base or A/C

 

Most radial engines have the cylinder and head in one piece, the loss of an entire cylinder usually causes some severe oil leaks as well, performance radials are to a large extent oil/air cooled, physically losing a cylinder is going to put you out of the fight regardless, with a statistically higher chance of RTB than losing cooling in an inline engine 

 

A while ago one of the Dev's posted in a thread explaining a bit about radial and inline engine damage when the often made question of 'stronk' russian engines was brought up again

 

am sure someone can dig up that thread 

 

Cheers dakpilot

[BlitzPig_EL]

Another reason for the use of radials in most naval aviation in WW2 was simply logistics.  No need to take up precious storage space aboard the carrier with tanks full of glycol, to replenish the cooling systems of inline engines.

 

There were exceptions, The Japanese did have a few inline aircraft, and of course the Fleet Air Arm did as well.  It should also be noted that the P51 actually successfully completed carrier testing trials, but the Navy chose not to adopt it.

[Fern]

What was the source of that quote Fern?

 

Can't tell you how many times I would have made use of that coolant shutoff valve if I had one fitted.  Someone just blinks at my 109 and it ends up with a coolant leak.

 

First was another forum.

 

But from wiki it cites these:

 

Ersatzteilliste Bf 109 G, pp. 117–118 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20109/Bf109G_Ersatzteilliste_Mearz_1942.pdf

 

I'd say in Figure 209.703, No.1, absperrventil mit sperrhaken is the shut off valve. No. 38 is the griff (handle) in cockpit to pull with the cable assembly connected to shut off valve.You can see the second handle in the Figure also. I think thats where it goes on to pp. 119-120 for it.

 

 

Bf 109 F, pp. 93a-93d

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20109/Bf109F_Ersatzteil_Liste.pdf

Edited July 26, 2016 by Fern

[Jason_Williams]

Another reason for the use of radials in most naval aviation in WW2 was simply logistics.  No need to take up precious storage space aboard the carrier with tanks full of glycol, to replenish the cooling systems of inline engines.

 

There were exceptions, The Japanese did have a few inline aircraft, and of course the Fleet Air Arm did as well.  It should also be noted that the P51 actually successfully completed carrier testing trials, but the Navy chose not to adopt it.

 

I forgot that the Mustang has naval trials. Damn wouldn't that be fun. I wonder how much extra weight the reinforced parts, tailhook and stiffer shocks would have added. http://mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/naval/naval.htm

 

Jason

[wtornado]

Mustang Naval documents were a good read..

Edited July 26, 2016 by WTornado

[Gambit21]

Hellcat scores higher in all critical areas, and that's leaving out survivability.

I know that all the 352nd Mustang pilots that I interviewed all wanted their P47's back when they started ground attack missions in France.

Some of this was because they wanted the 8 .50 cals back, but also/mostly the ruggedness factor.

 

The Navy made the right choice.

 

 

There were exceptions, The Japanese did have a few inline aircraft, and of course the Fleet Air Arm did as well.  It should also be noted that the P51 actually successfully completed carrier testing trials, but the Navy chose not to adopt it.

 

Because it was dangerous/unstable at slow speeds.

While it "passed" it was deemed unsuitable.

[1Sascha]

I forgot that the Mustang has naval trials. Damn wouldn't that be fun. I wonder how much extra weight the reinforced parts, tailhook and stiffer shocks would have added. http://mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/naval/naval.htm

 

Jason

What about the 109 and Stuka "T"-models?

 

I wish someone at some point would produce a flight-sim with the "Graf Zeppelin" and her carrier-planes for a "what if"-scenario... :D

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

 

 

S.

Edited July 26, 2016 by 1Sascha

[BlitzPig_EL]

Obsolete before her hull ever touched the water.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yeah, the carrier group really doesn't look all that good. That aircraft carrier wouldnt be able to defend itself or provide sufficient cover for escorted bombers. Would be nice to see it though

[JtD]

Obsolete before her hull ever touched the water.

The Lexington was obsolete before even laid down, and it still became a fine ship...I wouldn't judge Graf Zeppelin by some stats of a half done ship.

[1Sascha]

Like I said: a "what if" scenario. Wouldn't be high on my list of priorities, but OTOH, I don't recall the Graf Zeppelin and her planes ever being featured in a flight-sim. So it would definitely be something new and "fresh". And not, say, the 100000th version of a Battle of Britain scenario.. :D

 

The closest thing to a GZ-scenario that I remember was a Warbrids-event where we flew 109 E-4s from the generic carrier group that was modeled in that game.

 

Plus: From what I understand, the GZ was *nearly* combat ready pretty early on.

 

 

 

By the end of 1939, she was 85% complete, with a projected completion by the middle of 1940

 

 

 

And obsolescence? A lot of air forces used "obsolete" equipment. The Brits used the Swordfish for example, Russia used the I-16, Germany the Ju-87, etc. Heck, you could argue that the 109 was obsolete by 1944, even with improved models like the G-10 or K-4 getting produced. It was, after all, a pre-war, mid/late 1930s design that arguably hit its peak with the F-series.

 

 

 

 

S.

[Solty]

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

Many guncams end with the pilot bailing out beeing it a few times with nothing on the airplane. There is even a recording of a 190 pilot bailing before the Mustang pilot was even able to hit him.

 

If you shoot off the wing it will go down without an oil leak Radiator damage is the main reason for inline engine fighters to go down. That is why P-51 is said to be so fragile. It is the same for Bf109, Spitfire, Yak, LaGG etc. Every plane cooled by liquid cooling system is going to go down very quickly when that system gets damaged.

Edited July 28, 2016 by =LD=Solty