bf 110 fragility & flamibility

[tailwheel]

Is there a thread discussing the ease of which wings get shot off the bf 110 and it's propensity to catch fire?

[Finkeren]

The Bf 110E originally had too weak wings, and the Bf 110G launched with a bug that would destroy its guns at the slightest provocation.

 

Both have been fixed now.

 

Can you be more specific about what you think is the problem? Simply "feeling" that it should be more durable isn't going to help a discussion much.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I don't think that there are many anecdotes describing the incredible strength/survivability of the 110 either.

[Fern]

I don't think that there are many anecdotes describing the incredible strength/survivability of the 110 either.

 

So if we are going off accounts of WWII pilots and history books....nevermind. You guys too smart...

 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

So if we are going off accounts of WWII pilots and history books....nevermind. You guys too smart...

 

-snip-

 

Relax, all I'm saying is that the impression that the 110 was some kind of flying tank is a little misguided.

 

After the earlier corrections to the 110 E's damage model I think things are pretty convincingly modeled.

-snip-

 

Simply "feeling" that it should be more durable isn't going to help a discussion much.

 

This.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Anecdotally I've taken an incredibly beating while flying missions in the Bf110 (of which I have flown quite a few both online and off) and still made it home on one damaged engine and one dead engine. It was dramatic but I made it. Other times I've taken some crippling damage and crashed. I think I've lost a wing only a couple of times.

 

Its not armored up like the IL-2 but I feel, especially after they made some corrections, that its reasonably tough. As always... inline engines are typically vulnerable to ground fire and a single bullet can make your day a bad one really quickly. So far as I know, only the IL-2 encases its inline engine in such a way to give it any real protection.

[tailwheel]

The Bf 110E originally had too weak wings, and the Bf 110G launched with a bug that would destroy its guns at the slightest provocation.

 

Both have been fixed now.

 

Can you be more specific about what you think is the problem? Simply "feeling" that it should be more durable isn't going to help a discussion much.

The first time I took it out I did a number of ground attacks. At first I thought I was diving in too fast and the wings were just breaking off from over speed. But it was always the right wing. I then noticed I'd hear a single hit and the wing would just break off. And more often than not if I got hit, the plane would catch fire. Comparing it to most of all the other aircraft the 110 reminded me of the Japanese Betty in how it light up. I'm also comparing it to the IL2 1946 version and I brought home a lot of damaged 110's. But in BOS a hit usually means certain destruction. I can start keeping track of mission outcomes to give some empirical info. However I wanted to ping the forum first to see if the topic was already covered. Once again I don't want to OP the plane, just want it accurate.

[Finkeren]

The first time I took it out I did a number of ground attacks. At first I thought I was diving in too fast and the wings were just breaking off from over speed. But it was always the right wing. I then noticed I'd hear a single hit and the wing would just break off. And more often than not if I got hit, the plane would catch fire. Comparing it to most of all the other aircraft the 110 reminded me of the Japanese Betty in how it light up. I'm also comparing it to the IL2 1946 version and I brought home a lot of damaged 110's. But in BOS a hit usually means certain destruction. I can start keeping track of mission outcomes to give some empirical info. However I wanted to ping the forum first to see if the topic was already covered. Once again I don't want to OP the plane, just want it accurate.

I did a bit of testing yesterday with the 110s and found no problems. Do you know which kinds of guns took you out? If you were attacking an area defended by 40mm AAA, then a single hit will take you down almost every time.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Finkeren

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

The 110 had an issue with "glass wings" a few DM tweaks ago but last I recall the issue was pretty much resolved.

[Finkeren]

Yeah because nothing people have complained about in this sim ever gets fixed or improved...

 

...exept:

 

Fw 190 FM

 

Bf 109, Fw 190 structural durability

 

"Glass wings" on Bf 109, Bf 110, Yak-1 and others.

 

Terrain shimmering

 

VR support

 

DX11 support

 

Hit sound bug

 

Realistic ground handling and landings

 

And much, much more. And that's just in the last few months.

[Yogiflight]

The effects of the german HE rounds was improved, as you can read in Nr. 10 of the changelist. That they increased the initial speed of the shell fragments is surely, because this is easier to model than the damage caused by the blast of the explosion.

EDIT: TBH, for me it was never the big issue, that it was to difficult to bring russian aircrafts down, but, that even after several large holes in the wings, they still turn as if they just came out of the factory. I suppose this issue is with german aircrafts as well.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Yogiflight

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

TBH, for me it was never the big issue, that it was to difficult to bring russian aircrafts down, but, that even after several large holes in the wings, they still turn as if they just came out of the factory. I suppose this issue is with german aircrafts as well.

 

I don't agree with this.

 

I was flying some Yak 1-B SP missions last night and the drag effects when damaged are certainly implemented.

[Willy__]

I was flying some Yak 1-B SP missions last night and the drag effects when damaged are certainly implemented.

 

 

The way that he put on his post, I dont think Yogiflight was talking about drag, the holes certainly slow the aircraft down. Let me put this way: if you take damage on the german crafts, especially if the damage is done to the tail section(and you are lucky enough that it didnt blow entirely off), the aircraft will start to wobble, making any harsh maneuver and the aircraft will try to stall, and aiming will become very very hard, this is very pronounced on the 109s; but if you shoot half elevator of the russian crafts they are still able to make tight turns, if you did that on the german craft it will most likely tumble. But that just my impression, nothing really scientific. Overall, the russian aircraft seems way more stable than german ones, especially the Yaks and Laggs.

Edited May 16, 2017 by JAGER_Staiger

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

The way that he put on his post, I dont think Yogiflight was talking about drag, the holes certainly slow the aircraft down. Let me put this way: if you take damage on the german crafts, especially if the damage is done to the tail section(and you are lucky enough that it didnt blow entirely off), the aircraft will start to wobble, making any harsh maneuver and the aircraft will try to stall, and aiming will become very very hard, this is very pronounced on the 109s; but if you shoot half of elevator os the russian crafts they are still able to make tight turns, if you did that on the german craft it will most likely tumble. But that just my impression, nothing really scientific. Overall, the russian aircraft seems way more stable than german ones, especially the Yaks and Laggs.

 

No argumentativeness or discrediting intended but I simply can't relate to your experiences.

[Finkeren]

As someone who flies Yak and Fw 190 in about equal measure (together they make up more than 50% of my flying hours) and flies Bf 109s often enough to be familiar with them, I must say, that I never found much of a difference in the way they handle while damaged. Holes in the wings will slow you down and decrease the lift generated by that wing making the aircraft inherently unstable (you basically have to sideslip slightly to compensate) losing a control surface is pretty much catastrophic, not so much because of the loss of control authority (at most speeds all fighters have way more control authority than they need) but because the control input becomes asymetrical making it very dangerous to do hard maneuvers. When I lose a control surface in combat, I try to disengage immediately and failing that, I most often bail out, because I'm pretty much done for.

 

I find that all fighters suffer from these effects in about equal measure. There are some planes that get hit harder than others: The P-40 I find to become almost entirely unflyable when it loses a control surface. The Fw 190 seems to be slightly more affected by holes in the wing (which is to be expected with the high wingloading and the nasty accelerated stall). For the MiG-3 pretty much any type of damage has catastrophic consequences for handling.

 

The Bf 109s, Yaks and I-16 I find to cope with damage better than the other fighters (in terms of handling) except that the I-16 will go into a spin all the time once it loses an aileron.

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

but if you shoot half elevator of the russian crafts they are still able to make tight turns

This is just nonsense....

 

 

[Yogiflight]

This is no nonsense, when we talk about AI. They can be heavily damaged and still be as manouverable as a factory new aircraft. But as mentioned above, I suppose this will be the same with german AI aircrafts. And it doesn't matter, if its a lot of big holes in the wings or, like Staiger mentioned, One elevator lost, or an aileron lost, I don't see any difference in FM, exept, like Space_Ghost mentioned, a loss of speed.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

This is just nonsense....

 

 

No argumentativeness or discrediting intended but I simply can't relate to your experiences.

Discredit all you like. Never will touch a red plane with a 6 foot barge pole and thus their opinion holds zero validity on the matter. Edited May 17, 2017 by B0SS

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I think maybe by having the fuel leak visual effect of only one type nevertheless the hole is made by a rifle cal or a 20mm HE shell can be responsible for some of these damage irregularities. It isn't the same to have a Yak leaking both wing fuel tanks because of a 7,92mm spray than it being thanks to a couple 20mm impacts, but both will look the same at distance (only paying attention at the trails the plane is leaving).

[tailwheel]

This is no nonsense, when we talk about AI. They can be heavily damaged and still be as manouverable as a factory new aircraft. But as mentioned above, I suppose this will be the same with german AI aircrafts. And it doesn't matter, if its a lot of big holes in the wings or, like Staiger mentioned, One elevator lost, or an aileron lost, I don't see any difference in FM, exept, like Space_Ghost mentioned, a loss of speed.

If you land a mig roughly and do a ground loop, you can easily damage one of the stabilizers. You will see a 'crack' along it's base. Take off and fly to attain speed, the elevator will break off. You will see a considerable effect on performance. 

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

I love flying the 110, I can drop bombs into a pickle barrel with it. The way I have circumvented the seeming fragility of the plane is to use the tactic of fully excepting your own demise when you start the engines. This way there is no disappointment, rage, salt, etc. etc. Every time I go "wheels up" in it, I have already made my peace with the Lord. Problem solved.

[Yogiflight]

Hi Tailwheelbrownbear, as a SP player, I was talking about AI aircrafts, only. With player aircraft I made similar experiences, like the one you discriped, with the 109, too.

[Luftschiff]

I love flying the 110, I can drop bombs into a pickle barrel with it. The way I have circumvented the seeming fragility of the plane is to use the tactic of fully excepting your own demise when you start the engines. This way there is no disappointment, rage, salt, etc. etc. Every time I go "wheels up" in it, I have already made my peace with the Lord. Problem solved.

 

As a long-time Stuka, 110 and Heinkel pilot - I can fully relate to and recommend this approach.

[Lusekofte]

First of all I am glad the glass wing effect is fixed, I might take her for another spin . 

Complex aircraft the 110, it had many advanced systems and it was almost as big as a JU 88, if not as big. All these things give a annoying feeling of being too easy shot down.

I myself are annoyed by the same thing in a IL 2. But both these planes catch a lot of bullets, hence they got a lot of damage, more than you realise 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Discredit all you like. Never will touch a red plane with a 6 foot barge pole and thus their opinion holds zero validity on the matter.

 

If you have no experience with that which you're complaining against, I'd say whatever argument or accusations you make have zero validity as well. 

[Finkeren]

If you have no experience with that which you're complaining against, I'd say whatever argument or accusations you make have zero validity as well.

I think you misunderstood what he meant. As I see it, he said the people complaining won't fly VVS planes, not himself.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I think you misunderstood what he meant. As I see it, he said the people complaining won't fly VVS planes, not himself.

 

Perhaps so but I'm still not attempting to deride anybody else's experiences or opinions on the matter.

 

To summarize:

• The Bf 110 E/G both have convincing damage models as things currently stand.
• There isn't even an anecdotal legend about the "flying tank Bf 110" - quite the opposite.
• Drag effects, control effectiveness, etc. is consistent across airframes/damage models.
• The AI can fly a damaged aircraft to the edge of its envelope - its AI. This doesn't mean there is a bias/modeling difference - it just means that a computer algorithm is better at accounting for adverse variables than the average player... whowouldathunkit?
• When I do fly, I fly both sides. I've experienced both sides of the fence.
• If you don't fly both sides equally (or at all) it's incredibly difficult to form an objective opinion about something you have no experience in.
• As such, I can't relate to many of the criticisms or complaints. I simply haven't experienced them while flying LW or VVS, 109 or Yak, etc.

TL;DR - There is always room for improvement but many of the claims in this thread are, in my opinion, baseless conjecture.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Keep in mind the BF110 Wings are Nearly Overloaded (specially with full fuel)
Just parked on the ground they already in a high tensile stressed state

[Thad]

I love flying the 110, I can drop bombs into a pickle barrel with it. The way I have circumvented the seeming fragility of the plane is to use the tactic of fully excepting your own demise when you start the engines. This way there is no disappointment, rage, salt, etc. etc. Every time I go "wheels up" in it, I have already made my peace with the Lord. Problem solved.

Ah... the "Today is a good day to die" attitude. Gotta respect and love it.

[Riderocket]

When I fly one side too long, I begin to dispise the other,

It is not healthy, we should all learn to fly 50/50.

 

I like flying this simulator because its the most realistic feeling sim there currently is.

 

If you start to hate the other side, then its a good sign you should switch, instead of coming on here and going on about Russian Bias, and Luftwhiners.

 

This game isn't made by Gaijin, The Devs are doing everything historically accurate as they can. (and doing more then 100% IMO) the attention to detail in this game is amazing!

 

 

 

In real life the IL-2 was called the "Flying Tank".

 

The BF110 was not.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

If you have no experience with that which you're complaining against, I'd say whatever argument or accusations you make have zero validity as well. 

 

 

My friend you've misunderstood me, sorry. Comment was directed at a Luftwaffle fanboy who wouldn't be seen dead touching a red plane, thinking he has some fair say on their damage modelling. 

[tailwheel]

I think you misunderstood what he meant. As I see it, he said the people complaining won't fly VVS planes, not himself.

For the record I fly both sides with equal ineptitude (and pleasure). Part of my curiosity is because having brought a lot of smoking pe2's back to base (or at least close to base), I found the 110 much more fragile. However It's been a while since I kept track of damage. I mostly make my peace when I spawn in and try my best.

Aannnnddd I think the game is awesome, one of my three faves, IL2 / Borderlands / Minecraft.

Annnddd I was just curious for historical info about the survivability of 110's. Having flown a lot of the other planes, I found the 110 was cooking up more than I was used to. (which might be historical, hence my post) I looked at some 110 crash pictures on the web, and all of them looked like the plane had some fortitude. G4M crash pictures all look like the plane was totally destroyed. Course, it could simply be the coincidental, esp since the G4M's were crashing into jungle biomes.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Tailwheelbrownbear

[Beazil]

I don't think that there are many anecdotes describing the incredible strength/survivability of the 110 either.

Truth. The 110 is tougher than a 109, but a lot easier to hit too, and sadly not bullet/cannonproof.  

 

A pig needs wingmen, luck, (or good decision making, strategy, etc).  But it should be better (a bit) than it was previously.  But there's not much difference between two cannon holes and three.  And it's hard to tell the difference.

Ninja edit:  Saw your post while I was writing this....

 

I think it just depends on where the hit occurred and what section was damaged - hard to make an objective observation, especially when, for example, a coolant leak looks like a coolant leak - a fuel leak looks like a fuel leak.... holes appear in the wings, etc...  while the system we have is incredibly dynamic visually, it's hard to tell how badly damaged a 110's engines are vs. a PE2's based on say, the observation of smoke, coolant, etc.  Not without actual definitive testing.  One round at a time.  In the same spot.  Under the same circumstances.  Pretty hard to do definitively with the tools we have as end users.  

One of the most recent development blogs addressed this.  It may even be the most recent one.  They upped the durability of certain planes the way they were intended to be, but got fudged a bit over time with little changes they have made during development, but they fixed this issue.  

I'm not aware of how we could test this, though.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Beazil

[tailwheel]

Keep in mind the BF110 Wings are Nearly Overloaded (specially with full fuel)

Just parked on the ground they already in a high tensile stressed state

But the overloading is for lift right? or is that structural? (ie stalling vs disintegrating) I looked for diagrams of the internal structures of the 110 and pe2 and couldn't find anything good. That would be a decent start. I guess for experiment we could build balsa reproductions and see how the structures come apart under stress. While not identical to aluminum full size versions, they would probably give relative strength comparisons, no? Any engineers know if that is a legitimate theory?

[Beazil]

Tailwheel, that sounds more fun than anything.  I have no idea if it would be a reasonable analogue, but I'd like to see it anyway.  

 

I used to think balsa planes were the coolest thing in the world when I was very little.  

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Discredit all you like. Never will touch a red plane with a 6 foot barge pole and thus their opinion holds zero validity on the matter.

 

Is this sentence as stupid as I read it, I feel my English reading is a bit challenged here 

[LukeFF]

But the overloading is for lift right? or is that structural? (ie stalling vs disintegrating) I looked for diagrams of the internal structures of the 110 and pe2 and couldn't find anything good. That would be a decent start. I guess for experiment we could build balsa reproductions and see how the structures come apart under stress. While not identical to aluminum full size versions, they would probably give relative strength comparisons, no? Any engineers know if that is a legitimate theory?

 

Don't pay much attention to what he writes.

[LukeFF]

As for determining how durable the Bf 110 was, this wartime report compiled during the war by Vultee is very instructive: Analysis of the Messerschmitt Me 110. It's a 384-page document of a Bf 110 C captured sometime in 1941. Pretty much every aspect of the plane was analyzed. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by LukeFF

[Monostripezebra]

As for determining how durable the Bf 110 was, this wartime report compiled during the war by Vultee is very instructive: Analysis of the Messerschmitt Me 110. It's a 384-page document of a Bf 110 C captured sometime in 1941. Pretty much every aspect of the plane was analyzed. 

 

Did you read all that? Because it looks like it  doesn´t say anything on structural damage resistance and is more of an engineering/production review. The only things that have been shot-tested in there are the self sealing fuel tanks, see PP94 and beyond: the tanks themselves fared more or less poorly, especially against .50cal while sealing of some .30 hits but where overall considered to be roughly par with us systems from 1939, while the instalation (sparking+shrapnell potential) was seen a bit more favourably and thoughfully designed. It´s a really interesting read for the nerds, but definately not a how-to manual on damage models. But anyhow thanks for posting that!

 

 

But appart from that I don´t really get any actual complaints on the 110s, yes, they were too weak in the past, especially those wingspars.. but in the current patch version, they are actually quite damage resistant and pretty tough. I´ve had some really tankish encounters with them and I don´t think these planes have balancing problems any more... like at all. In my eyes, the last patch seems to have largely done away with the previous game versions damage disparities.. and especially the improved effects of 20mm explosive shells have moved all planes more in a closer range of how much they can stay in combat.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Monostripezebra

[curiousGamblerr]

I'm not that type of engineer but I see two problems with the balsa wood reproduction idea.

 

First, aren't the 110 and pe2 wings made of different material? If they are, then reconstructions of both using the same material wouldn't be particularly helpful in determining relative strength.

 

Second, as far as the aluminum or whatever metal used for 110 wings, balsa would definitely have different properties in response to various types of forces (torsion, shearing, etc). So, a balsa recreation of a structure designed to be built with aluminum would likely have weakness not present in the real thing.

 

That said, if anyone ever builds a balsa recreation of any of these aircraft, I'm sure we'd all love to see it! Would be sick to put a few electric engines in a balsa 110 and try to fly it (likely destroying many hours of construction work on your first flight but still).