Messerschmitt 109 durability

[unreasonable]

If you did model the material variation presumably you would get some Soviet wings as now, the average, some weaker - but also some stronger! 

 

Clearly this is not going to happen with the current philosophy of all aircraft of a type being equal: you would have to go back to the RoF philosophy (at least in SP) where some planes are lemons: and you never knew until you took off.  I think that was only in engine performance though.

I can see why this would be an unnecessary complication - people have enough trouble getting their head around the natural variability in results as it is.  

[Holtzauge]

Interesting, I did not know they actually did variations in RoF. Nice touch really, but as you say, even if we don't get that type of variation in BoX the average Russian wing should be stronger due to the dimensioning based on the semi-lemon.

 

God help us if they introduce stochastic variations: Image the resulting forum discussions about if a specific climb or speed figure measured in-game is due to the sample being factory fresh or a lemon.   

[unreasonable]

I agree - chaos.   The effects of RNG in DM and anything to do with AI are large enough.

 

I have just been running some systematic flak tests (in Custard's thread): the variation in the number of aircraft shot down running a large AI only test mission 10 times per variation is fairly large.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

Sure I agree. Modelling something like that is beyond the scope of Il2.

 

As for alternate load paths, I haven’t looked at it in enough detail to know if there are significant differences between the 109 and the yak. If there are it might be something worth incorporating into the ‘score’ as you put it though.

[Kurfurst]

I would think that there is a difference as to tolerance against flight loads and tolerance against damage. Not just the safety factor is important, but how you redistribute loads when bits start flying off.

 

Also I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that material variation is not simulated in Il2. Which means that you never have the worst case materials for which the higher safety factors were implemented.

 

Good point.

 

Damage tolerance and load bearing properties are not directly relate, especially as metal construction yield different type of failures than wood. Wood IS quite resilient to slowly applied loads, such as g-loads in turn but it will fail rapidly against sudden impacts, moreover the failure is not local but can easily spreads through the material. In metal structures, you always get only local damage, typically plugging or shearing damage.

 

In any case, the "safety factor" argument has little to no merit in a simulated environment where all planes of the same type are always the same and there is no variation in between them in the amount of g-load they can take and consequently, there is no variation either in the "strength" of the wing structure either.

 

All Yaks always fail at 10g and 109s at 10.5g. This amount of break failure point is hard coded and are the same every time. 

 

Therefore, irrespective that in real life where the engineers would aim for, for example 5g nominal load in a Yak and use a 2x safety factor, and arrive at anywhere between an actual 10g or 12 g resistance in individual serial produced examples, in the sim we always have the one with the durability for 10g resistence and corresponding durability of the structure. 

 

The 'safety factor' thus does not appear at all in the ability to resist g-loads, so why while does this "Joker card" suddenly appear of assumed extra 20% durability for damage...? Did the a wing structure suddenly become 20% beefier and is able to resist 20% more g-loads as well...?

 

Secondly, because the structure has to resist a given load or force for a given force of lift/aircraft weight, therefore its resistance against g-load is relative to aircraft weight but its ability to resist damage is absolute to the type of damage. I.e. the damaging ability of a 20 mm shell is always the same, but it does far more substantial level of  damage to structure that was sized to bear forces equivalent to 70 tons than one that is sized to bear forces equivalent of 30 tons. It is easy to see that a massively more robust spar of a bomber or a large fighter such as the P-47 will be relatively less damaged by the same hit than on a smaller fighter like the 109 or a Yak.

 

Thirdly, the number of spars or type of construction is again irrelevant once you know is the actual, quantifiable strength of the wing. This can be easily ascertained by looking on the forces the wing is designed to resist before it ultimately fails (breaks).

 

The strenght of the wing to resist bending forces acting on the wing essentially equal the lift generated by the wing (some is generated by other parts, like fuselage etc. but lets keep it simple and assume all lift is produced by the wing), since in level (1g) flight lift equals the aircrafts weight. From there it is easy to arrive at the force at 1g, 2g etc. all up to the ultimate force acting on the wing at its maximum g-load, which as noted is a fixed amount in the sim.

 

This ultimate force can be considered as the strength or durability of the wing, when it breaks. When the wing structure is damaged its ability to sustain this load decreases and it will fail at lower loads, but given that it has the ability to sustain up to 10 or more time the load the plane is subjected in level flight, its quite hard to see why wings are being ripped of in 1g level flight after a couple of hits, when it has a "safety factor" of 10 or so to begin with!

 

In reality, hits rarely if ever "cut off" a wing due to massive amount of physical damage to the structure itself, rather weaken the structure and mother nature and gravity, i.e. the forces acting on the wing does the rest. The weakened wing structure looses a good portion of its load bearing capability, meaning it would fail at much lower g-loads, but apart from golden BB shots to some places like attachment points and such, it is quite absurd to see wings flying off in simple level flight, where the forces acting upon it are a fraction of what its capable of resisting when undamaged.

 

To give a practical example:

 

The Yak 1's loaded weight was 2883 kg loaded, and the force generated by lift to keep it level at 1g is the same (lift equals weight). If the Yaks break strength is 10g, it follows that the wing is capable to resist the equivalent of 2883 kg x 10(g), in other words it is sized for 28.83 tons of weight. This is the same method as used in ground tests to test wing tests, i.e. weights are placed on the wing and see when does it break.

 

The 109F-4s´s loaded weight was 2890kg loaded, and the force generated by lift to keep it level at 1g is the same (lift equals weight). If the 109F-4´s break strenght is 10.5g, it follows that the wing is capable to resist the equaivalent of 2890kg x 10.5(g), in other words it aircraft structure strength is sized to carry a bit more, 30,40 tons of weight. 

 

So how the heck did a wing that is capable of resisting up to 30.40 tons suddenly become 20% weaker than one that is capable to take up to 28.83 tons of weight without breaking..? Or does it exists in two dimensions, resisting forces from g-load as wing that is strong enough to resist 10 g, but when its hit, it is suddenly a wing that is capable of resisting 20% more, 12 gs..? It is entirely arbitrary. 

[MiloMorai]

 

He did, actually. Post no. 31., in https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12826-game-updates/

 

 Update 2.010

 

10. German 20 mm shell fragments have a higher initial speed because of their higher explosive mass to total mass ratio so they cause more damage;

11. Bf 109, Fw 190 and some other planes durability is fixed (it was undeliberately lowered because of the many earlier changes in these aircraft). Now twin longeron Soviet fighters with delta-wood wings are roughly 20% more durable than Bf 109 fighters which have single longeron wings, while Fw 190s with triple longeron wings are roughly 20% more durable than Soviet fighters. P-40 is even more durable thanks to its five longeron wings. Pe-2 and Bf 110 planes are roughly twice more durable than Soviet fighters while IL-2 fits somewhere in between Pe-2 and LaGG in terms of combat durability;

 

 

The Fw190 had a 3rd longeron? The front longeron was full span. The rear spar did not pass thru the fuselage. Is this counted as the 3rd longeron?

[=RvE=Windmills]

 

 

due to the modeling of the German Mingeschoss which is a totally different issue

 

It is due to the modelling of AP and HE, nothing to do with Germans specifically. AP is just really good at doing structural damage.

 

Try the pure HE loadout on La5.

[Kurfurst]

Speaking of structural damage - what is "structure" in Il2:BoS? Is the wing a single "structure" entity with a set amount of hitpoints? Are there seperate elements in it like spars, ribs that could be individually damaged, "weak points" etc?

[Dakpilot]

It is very arbitrary, but over time I have read a lot of pilot memoirs both axis and allied and a lot of historical books, lots of anecdotes (that I recall) describing 'tough' FW-190's, P-40's, Jugs, Lagg's, La5's and even Yaks but none come to mind about Bf-109's.

Anybody have any?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[JG1_Shadepiece]

To be completely and totally honest, I feel that all fighters in the game seem to be ever so slightly on the too fragile side of things. It seems that everytime a kill is made it is preceded by a massive leaking from the wings or fuselage.

 

The effect is absolutely gorgeous, but I am curious as to how often smoke was produced by battle damage, and how often fuel tanks were hit. Perhaps it is modelled very accurately, but overall the fighters FEEL more fragile compared to anything else I've flown, where as the bombers feel incredibly more tough than the fighters.

 

This is mostly just my rambling on because, honestly the DM in this game is quickly becoming the best one available.

 

I do think 109s fall apart very easily most times, but I don't think that the Russian aircraft DMs are off by too much at all. It seems to me that their cannons just have a much larger advantage.

 

Somewhere between the fragility of the 109, the disparity of cannon effectiveness, and the disparity of AP vs HE effectiveness makes the 109 feel significantly less dangerous than it should feel. I think that's where so many folks are trying to get the 109 buffed.

 

I don't think the actual damage model of the aircraft is the primary problem, but rather how HE damage is delt. I think in general on both sides HE is far too ineffective, while AP being far too effective.

[Kurfurst]

Check out George Punka''s "Messer". At least Hungarian pilots liked it and considered it a tough plane that brings them back despite damages, and they especially liked that in the event of belly landing, it did not have tendency to catch fire.

 

I guess its all relative but they would certainly state such things if loosing wings all the time would have been a common experience in combat.

[JG1_Shadepiece]

I think I am going to start a separate thread about the AP vs HE damage.

[Kurfurst]

@Shadepiece,

 

I agree with your take on it and I too feel that as if fighters would generally very much on the 'fragile' side of the slider, while bombers are far, far tougher (I do like bombers not falling apart easily though, it was silly in earlier, non directly related IL-2 titles that you would always "cut off" a giant wing from a B-17 sized bomber). There are of course a series of reasons due to this, which you have listed very accurately; here I would like to concentrate on one thing however, the very arbitrary approach of "more spars" = better and "wood=better".

 

The outstanding example of this is the 109;'s wings, which are especially flimsy, and which is hard to understand considering the aircraft was even cleared to carry considerable loads such as gondolas, large rockets and droptanks etc. under the wings during its service. That is not to say there weren't stronger, tougher aircraft but if I would have to point a flimsy part on the 109 it is definitely not the wings but the rear fuselage, which was of very light construction, unlike for example the one on the Yaks which was built on metal webs, a bit like the Wellington's or Hurricane's. Definitely a bit oldschool more in common with the biplane era, but tough.

 

The reasons to have been already listed in my opening posts, but basically,this approach more or less ignores actual structures of the planes and the actual load bearing capability of the wings.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

The Yak 1's loaded weight was 2883 kg loaded, and the force generated by lift to keep it level at 1g is the same (lift equals weight). If the Yaks break strength is 10g, it follows that the wing is capable to resist the equivalent of 2883 kg x 10(g), in other words it is sized for 28.83 tons of weight. This is the same method as used in ground tests to test wing tests, i.e. weights are placed on the wing and see when does it break.

 

The 109F-4s´s loaded weight was 2890kg loaded, and the force generated by lift to keep it level at 1g is the same (lift equals weight). If the 109F-4´s break strenght is 10.5g, it follows that the wing is capable to resist the equaivalent of 2890kg x 10.5(g), in other words it aircraft structure strength is sized to carry a bit more, 30,40 tons of weight. 

 

So how the heck did a wing that is capable of resisting up to 30.40 tons suddenly become 20% weaker than one that is capable to take up to 28.83 tons of weight without breaking..? Or does it exists in two dimensions, resisting forces from g-load as wing that is strong enough to resist 10 g, but when its hit, it is suddenly a wing that is capable of resisting 20% more, 12 gs..? It is entirely arbitrary. 

 

I was with you at the start but this example seems to me to be contradictory to what I was saying.

 

Lets say for example we have 2 wings. Wing 1 can take 30 tons before failure, but only has one loadpath. Wing 2 can only take 20, but has 2 loadpaths (1 extra when everything is still in place. In German its called Statisch Überbestimmt).

 

Wing 1 is 'stronger' when its all working but I would argue less tolerant to damage. Maybe wing 2 can only handle 5 tons when one of the loadpaths is severed, but the wing isn't flapping in the wind or falling off.

 

Maybe since wing 1 has a thicker spar (higher safety factor) it could hold more with a few holes in it. While it is in some way related to the safety factor I don't think the effect is as direct as some people are trying to argue it is. It also depends heavily on what sort of damage case you have.

 

What needs to be examined is how the seperate wings compare as far as alternate loadpaths, and what sort of damage enemy weapons typically did as far as removing these. ie were the spars really totally severed or just had small holes in them. Were big sections of load bearing skin blown away by HE rounds or xyz.

Edited December 14, 2017 by 9./JG27DefaultFace

[Holtzauge]

To be completely and totally honest, I feel that all fighters in the game seem to be ever so slightly on the too fragile side of things. It seems that everytime a kill is made it is preceded by a massive leaking from the wings or fuselage.

 

The effect is absolutely gorgeous, but I am curious as to how often smoke was produced by battle damage, and how often fuel tanks were hit. Perhaps it is modelled very accurately, but overall the fighters FEEL more fragile compared to anything else I've flown, where as the bombers feel incredibly more tough than the fighters.

 

This is mostly just my rambling on because, honestly the DM in this game is quickly becoming the best one available.

 

I do think 109s fall apart very easily most times, but I don't think that the Russian aircraft DMs are off by too much at all. It seems to me that their cannons just have a much larger advantage.

 

Somewhere between the fragility of the 109, the disparity of cannon effectiveness, and the disparity of AP vs HE effectiveness makes the 109 feel significantly less dangerous than it should feel. I think that's where so many folks are trying to get the 109 buffed.

 

I don't think the actual damage model of the aircraft is the primary problem, but rather how HE damage is delt. I think in general on both sides HE is far too ineffective, while AP being far too effective.

 

This is spot on. Many of us feel that there is an issue with how HE damage is modeled in-game and AFAIK it is difficult to take this into account in the current modelling but as has been noted before, this is a separate issue from durability and needs to be addressed in another thread.

[BraveSirRobin]

How convenient... no kiln left to reproduce , resin composition unknown , no complete press left..... sounds like fairy dust material to me...

Also it is known that "DELTAwood" would shatter under explosive pressure (HEI-M Mineshell springs to mind )

Most likely destroyed by the developers of this game so that their devious plot to annoy German-only flight sim pilots would not be discovered.

[Holtzauge]

Just to clear up some confusion of safety factors. While design practice varies from country to country there are some I would say general design practices in that there are safety factors on many levels: First of all there are the load cases that give you the dimensioning loads. These are split into static and fatigue loads. Fatigue is another issue entirely but IRL may actually be the design limiting factor for some specific parts so it can’t be ignored and in the end some parts may actually be stronger than needed statically due to the fatigue requirement. It gets even more complicated if you consider that aluminium alloys (as opposed to wood and steel for example) has basically no fatigue limit meaning it will eventually break even for the lowest of load variations given enough load cycles.

 

Actually the symmetrical 10-11 g’s that have been mentioned above is not usually the toughest load case: IRL it varies but many times a scenario called rolling pull-out is the worst. But for the sake of this comparison, let’s say we use the symmetric static load case as design limiting: Then beginning with the design material we covered that woods strength varies more than metal so there’s yours first safety factor on the allowable material break/yield value. Second you need to come up with the static load safety factor where a value of 1.5 is not an unusual value in aeronautical engineering. You can take this design requirement into account by multiplying the ultimate allowable load factor in the flight manual, say 7, with 1.5 giving you a failure load factor of 10.5 g. Now this is then the design load factor the design will be contracted to hold and the procurement agency will want to test this say with sandbags on a test example. Now as a designer/manufacturer, you don’t want it to break at 10.49 g’s in testing do you? So what do you do? You add your own small safety factor on top of that. But all of the above is I would say general practice and I would venture to guess that the Russian and German procurement practice did not differ much on this point either.

 

Reading Kurfurst’s post above I’m interpreting his fallback position is now to argue about the apparent inconsistency between the failure load and the DM for the Russian wooden winged planes but the most logical way to solve that is to raise the ultimate load factor from for example 10.3 g to say 12 g to take into account that the Russian designers needed to have a higher safety factor when designing the wooden wings. So maybe something good will come out of this thread after all, only maybe not in the sense that Kurfurst envisioned in the OP? So maybe the conclusion from this thread will in the end be that someone should write a post to the developers asking that the ultimate load factor on the Russian wooden winged planes should be raised? How about that?

[Holtzauge]

The Fw190 had a 3rd longeron? The front longeron was full span. The rear spar did not pass thru the fuselage. Is this counted as the 3rd longeron?

 

Not sure how they count the longerons/spars in the DM but the Fw-190 structural engineering is really unconventional: The spar forks and the flanges end approximately 1/3 out from the root which is a really novel approach. From here on the bending load is carried entirely in the wing skin and stringers and what does not show up in the picture above is that outside the forked spar, there in not a single skin but actually three on top of each other riveted together with the stringers. Maybe the developers are referring to these stringers in the triple skinned area as longerons? Anyway, as I mentioned in an earlier post above, the British looked at both the Me-109F and the Fw-190A and concluded that the latter was much beefier and utilized substantially thicker wing panels.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Russian delta wood

 

"

Delta Drevesina-- this was a wood-plastic material used for heavy constructional elements, usually wing spars and such like. It consisted of carefully selected sections of spruce impregnated with a complex phenol-formaldehyde resin (thought to be Novolac type, but recipe unknown). The units were cured under pressure in a special kiln, of which there is no known surviving example.

 

Shpon-- was a sheeting material used for skinning aircraft, and of such strength that the resulting structures were usually of monocoque design. Shpon was made by laying cross-grained veneers of birch strip impregnated with resin (composition again unknown) over a thin sheet of Bakelite on one or both sides. The laminate was then cured under heat and pressure (the top half of one such 'press' existed for years in Ufa, but no complete unit is known). This process could be repeated for greater thickness, if desired.

 

All of these timber products would subsequently be covered by resin-impregnated strips of fabric on the aircraft. This outer covering acted quite a bit like fibreglass, as one might imagine. All of the resins used were noted for their flame resistant properties, and one may hold a match or candle under any of these materials and they will not 'burn' (in the usual sense-- they char and blacken)."

 

Not exactly sure how accurate but gives a bit more insight

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

Great post again. They added a hardness to it and as the next poster said it would shatter. The moment they made the wood rigid I have to agree. The shock force of an explosion would shatter this material. I've got fibreglass panels for my 4Runner. They are tough as nails but crack and break while my metal sections bend and dent.

 

This added rigidity of the delta wood would reduce greatly the ability to withstand shock loading. Our example of shock load is an explosive force. If aluminium has more tensile strength than steel and steel more tensile strength than wood.... See where I'm going with this? Now add resin to stiffen the wood with composites and you have reduced shock load resistance further.

Edited December 14, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[ACG_Smokejumper]

 

I just don't see the implausibility Fw 190 is accepted as stronger/more durable than 109, I think the debate should be about strength of Russian aircraft rather than weak 109, but that is a rather different debate

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

 

Here you and I agree %100. We need to change to a thread of shock loads on hardened wood wings.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

 What all this adds up to is that in general, the average wooden winged plane flying out there will be much stronger than needed meaning it should be able to absorb more battle damage.

 

 

 

 

Good post and I agree with much of it but you are forgetting shock loads. The wing will be stronger absolutely for flying and abuse but the moment it gets shock loaded with an explosion we are not looking at durability but ability to withstand a shock load.

 

Tensile strength

 

Aluminium>steel>wood>hardened composite wood - This is early plastics tech not a modern kevlar composite or even fibreglass.

 

 

So perhaps the 109 wing is not super tough but I firmly believe that the Russian wood is too strong in it's resistance to explosive force. It might soak up bullets like mad though. I don't know how "hard" it is. If it's very hard it is possible bullets would shatter it as well.

Edited December 14, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Holtzauge]

Great post again. They added a hardness to it and as the next poster said it would shatter. The moment they made the wood rigid I have to agree. The shock force of an explosion would shatter this material. I've got fibreglass panels for my 4Runner. They are tough as nails but crack and break while my metal sections bend and dent.

 

This added rigidity of the delta wood would reduce greatly the ability to withstand shock loading. Our example of shock load is an explosive force. If aluminium has more tensile strength than steel and steel more tensile strength than wood.... See where I'm going with this? Now add resin to stiffen the wood with composites and you have reduced shock load resistance further.

Here you and I agree %100. We need to change to a thread of shock loads on hardened wood wings.

 

 

Good post and I agree with much of it but you are forgetting shock loads. The wing will be stronger absolutely for flying and abuse but the moment it gets shock loaded with an explosion we are not looking at durability but ability to withstand a shock load.

 

Tensile strength

 

Aluminium>steel>wood>hardened composite wood - This is early plastics tech not a modern kevlar composite or even fibreglass.

 

 

So perhaps the 109 wing is not super tough but I firmly believe that the Russian wood is too strong in it's resistance to explosive force. It might soak up bullets like mad though. I don't know how "hard" it is. If it's very hard it is possible bullets would shatter it as well.

 

I agree completely about the composite fragility issue you bring up and have posted to that effect earlier on here and here and here and here and……you get the picture!

 

OTOH one has to be able to keep two thoughts in mind at the same time and while I think the Russian wooden fighters should have a higher durability when it comes to AP, FMJ and to a lesser extent HE damage as per the reasoning in this thread, pure explosive force should from a theoretical aspect be very bad news indeed for a wooden structure but then we are back to arguing for an updated Mingeschoss model and that deserves its own thread……

Edited December 14, 2017 by Holtzauge

[ACG_Smokejumper]

HA, you and I are going to get along I think. Nice to meet you.

 

I'm enjoying these discussions.

Edited December 14, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Holtzauge]

HA, you and I are going to get along I think. Nice to meet you.

 

Sounds good to me!   

[Brano]

There were no secret ingredients involved in soviet wooden composite construction/bonding. Basic resin glue ВИАМ-Б3 (and dozens of its derivates) is produced till today. Usually used by carpenters but also popular with hobby sail boat builders due to its excellent bonding ability and waterproofness. It is a mix of:

Phenolbarite resin ......... 100

Acetone or ethyl alcohol .......... 10

Kerosene contact .......... 1400

Acetone is introduced as a resin solvent. Ethyl alcohol can be used as the solvent as well.

Developed in 1930s by Всероссийский Институт Авиационных Материалов as one of the first synthetic glues used in soviet aviation industry.

[Holtzauge]

 

There were no secret ingredients involved in soviet wooden composite construction/bonding. Basic resin glue ВИАМ-Б3 (and dozens of its derivates) is produced till today. Usually used by carpenters but also popular with hobby sail boat builders due to its excellent bonding ability and waterproofness. It is a mix of:

Phenolbarite resin ......... 100

Acetone or ethyl alcohol .......... 10

Kerosene contact .......... 1400

Acetone is introduced as a resin solvent. Ethyl alcohol can be used as the solvent as well.

Developed in 1930s by Всероссийский Институт Авиационных Материалов as one of the first synthetic glues used in soviet aviation industry.

 

 

Yes, the Germans evaluated captured specimens of Russian wood and concluded it was of high quality and just as strong as their own phenolic wood products. Attached are a couple of pages I photographed some years ago from Aeronautical Engineering 1942. The strength values are really impressive and delta wood is commented on as being "remarkably strong".

[Brano]

Time well spent taking those photos.Thanks for sharing 

[Dakpilot]

With 35 thousand Yak's, 6 thousand odd Lagg-3's, 10 thousand or so La-5's and a large amount of IL-2's with 'wood' construction, I would have expected there to have been a lot of data/reports about parts 'shattering' or them being easy to shoot down

 

but mostly all I find is references to them being fairly tough, from both sides of the conflict, excepting a few well documented various production issues which got sorted

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Brano]

Interesting article I found some time ago. Some really fascinating stories about airplanes damaged beyond believable returning home ( Yevstigneyev's La-5 returning home without upper wing cover   ). Some thought about effectivnes of different type of ammo etc. Sorry,in russian

https://sites.google.com/site/tehniceskieparadoksy/home/kak-razdevalo-samolety

[ACG_Smokejumper]

With 35 thousand Yak's, 6 thousand odd Lagg-3's, 10 thousand or so La-5's and a large amount of IL-2's with 'wood' construction, I would have expected there to have been a lot of data/reports about parts 'shattering' or them being easy to shoot down

 

but mostly all I find is references to them being fairly tough, from both sides of the conflict, excepting a few well documented various production issues which got sorted

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

They would be tough but the moment they are hardened like they have been they are more susceptible top shock loads. Most damage of this sort on any aircraft will not be reported. An explosion capable of tearing a wing off a metre from the pilot if not killing the pilot outright can twist the fuselage so the canopy can't be opened or create violent centrifugal force pinning the pilot. Hard to report this kind of damage when you are buried with the aircraft.

 

If there are plenty of Russian photos showing cannon holes in wings it would to me indicate that they are able to take heavy damage and get home. I'm not a Russian a/c enthusiast like I am with our Western counterparts but certain aircraft like the Corsair and Thunderbolt are easy to find images of with heavy damage that got home.

 

I've been searching for images of Russian fighters with heavy damage coming home and having a hard time of it. I've found plenty of Western allied fighters in particular American ones. I would accept that perhaps the Russians didn't have as many cameras? I feel that's a bit of Western prejudice to say that though. They where not some archaic backwater.

 

I am finding evidence that the IL2 was as tough as the stories. Wow could it ever take a beating.

 

I also find it telling that there are a lot less Russian survivors considering the numbers pumped out. This is just my opinion based on my own research. I could obviously be full of pooh. I can't speak or read Russian so I could be easily missing vast swaths of information.

Edited December 14, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Kurfurst]

They would be tough but the moment they are hardened like they have been they are more susceptible top shock loads. Most damage of this sort on any aircraft will not be reported. An explosion capable of tearing a wing off a metre from the pilot if not killing the pilot outright can twist the fuselage so the canopy can't be opened or create violent centrifugal force pinning the pilot. Hard to report this kind of damage when you are buried with the aircraft.

 

Particularly if the aircraft disintegrates to 3 large pieces when hit.

 

[unreasonable]

The Yak 1 ser 69 is only a little more durable than the 109 G-4 in the game, although it obviously would not feel that way if you were in the marginal 109 ....

 

I have been running flak tests, first as a preliminary to modeling a Bodenplatte type airfield attack, then as a test of the AI, which led to test of the gun types. Using the same test mission, it is possible to test the results of replacing one plane with another.

 

So running the same mission (10 times for each case) and counting the results, each time with identical AI, waypoints etc, we can get some comparative average results.

 

As you can see, the AAA scores the same number of hits per round (within a statistically significant margin), but a larger proportion of the Yaks hit get away without being shot down or trailing fluids - which is my criterion for whether they should count as lost. 

 

 

If you want to know more about the test read Custard's :bravery of being out of range" thread.

 

 

[Dakpilot]

Particularly if the aircraft disintegrates to 3 large pieces when hit.

 

small_100TobakMK108G-10.jpg

Probably the lack of Stalinwood... Pesky Yak 9 with their aluminium spars

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Probably the lack of Stalinwood... Pesky Yak 9 with their aluminium spars

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

Frickin lol'd cheers Dak.

 

The aircraft coming apart is one of my favorite things about this game.

Edited December 16, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Caudron431]

Probably the lack of Stalinwood... Pesky Yak 9 with their aluminium spars

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Haha!  

[Sunde]

With 35 thousand Yak's, 6 thousand odd Lagg-3's, 10 thousand or so La-5's and a large amount of IL-2's with 'wood' construction, I would have expected there to have been a lot of data/reports about parts 'shattering' or them being easy to shoot down

 

but mostly all I find is references to them being fairly tough, from both sides of the conflict, excepting a few well documented various production issues which got sorted

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Same goes for the 109 right?

As far as i know, it wasn't known for a tendency to throw its wings at the enemy. :3

   In general i think wings in this game are abit too easy to chop off. Especially with AP loaded, seems like both 109 and yak wings are alot easier to shave off than control surfaces?

 

Larger AC like the JU88 or PE-2 seem fairly well modled to me, but fighters and the IL-2 (which was known for its toughness) seem to loose their wings fairly quickly? Lots of feelings, no data and but i am pretty sure im not entirely alone in this.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Sunde, where are you shooting at the IL2 to remove a wing? Not sarcasm I'm still adjusting from Cliffs and PE-2's and IL2's are my bane right now. Especially the PE-2. If I attack one I we both go in.

[=RvE=Windmills]

Sunde, where are you shooting at the IL2 to remove a wing? Not sarcasm I'm still adjusting from Cliffs and PE-2's and IL2's are my bane right now. Especially the PE-2. If I attack one I we both go in.

 

Like always with such things, repeatedly in the same place.

[Willy__]

Sunde, where are you shooting at the IL2 to remove a wing?

 

At the wings of course! 

 

Usually with the single 20mm of the 109s I think its easier to down il2 aiming at both elevators. Its best if you shoot them with some deflection, because they just soak most of the damage if you shoot it from straight 6. If im in a 190 I just blast away and they usually go down in a single pass. Honestly I think the IL2's weaker than the Pe2, while the pe has those psychic gunners which will hit you when you enter their arc of fire, best way of attacking is when they are turning.

Edited December 17, 2017 by 3./JG15_Staiger

[Kurfurst]

The following quote is from George Punka's Messer - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 in the Royal Hungarian Air Force. 

 

It is noteworthy that the combat experience of Lt. Pintér  agrees remarkable well with the original article that appeared in Flugwehr und Technik Vol. Ill, No. 10, October, 1941, pp. 233-9., on damage effects of the Messerschmitt type wing construction employing a torsion box design with unusually thick skinning built around a I-beam spar.

 

Attached also the original article, albeit the pictures on the spar and skin damage leave much to be desired.

FUt%wchr und Tcchnik

Vol. Ill, No. 10, October, 1941, pp. 233-9.