Crash landing & Belly landing

[St/JG3Schaefer40]

Hi all!

What's the reason that the crash landing and belly landings are so harmless.

 

I've read Clostermann again and he writes, even controlled belly landings with empty tanks on the airfield were very dangerous.

In IL2 you can make a 350 km/h crash, maybe 10°-20° degrees, with a full tank + bombs on grass  or sometimes in a forest and survive in a damaged plane. I would like to know, why it is like this and why there is no discussion at all?

 

Thank you

Schaefer

Edited October 4, 2019 by St/JG3Schaefer40

[CUJO_1970]

The Tempest Clostermann flew was known to be a very dangerous aircraft to ditch in - he was one of the few to survive a belly landing in one. In contrast, the FW-190 was considered fairly safe to belly land. (As safe as crash landing any aircraft may be considered)

 

Not all aircraft are created equally for this situation, but in the sim there may not be enough info to draw a conclusion, or enough time to program it.

[St/JG3Schaefer40]

Ok, I think that was because of the air intake, which enforced a rollover. So I understand, that different belly landings are not so important and difficult to program.

But crash landing with 300+, backward, with bombs and fuel is not a "landing" it is a deadly crash! - in the sim you can survive it, if the angle is not too steep.

Here are so many complaints concerning details, but  "to be or not to be" is a essential question in a Warbird-Sim.

For example - I already crashed my plane with intend in a high speed low dogfight just to survive - It works!

If it needs too many ressouces, ok, there are still more important thinks, but it is not unimportant and I still wonder, why there was never a discussion.

 

Maybe I'm the only one, who sometimes touchs the ground ??

Schaefer

 

 

[[DBS]Browning]

Wheels down landings (and takeoffs!) on rough terrain are also very forgiving.

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

I would also like to see belly landings to be more dangerous for pilots, even if the aircraft could stay intact the force of impact should cause serious injuries to the pilot or cause a major fire of the aircraft, ammo explosions, etc. 

[unreasonable]

30 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

I would also like to see belly landings to be more dangerous for pilots, even if the aircraft could stay intact the force of impact should cause serious injuries to the pilot or cause a major fire of the aircraft, ammo explosions, etc. 

 

Not necessarily. You can find plenty of examples of relatively uneventful belly landings: the key thing is not to hit an obstacle that will turn or flip the plane. If you get the speed right and have time to turn off the engine and belly land on fairly level terrain without tress, rocks, walls etc this is probably less dangerous in RL than bailing out.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

On 10/5/2019 at 3:02 AM, CUJO_1970 said:

The Tempest Clostermann flew was known to be a very dangerous aircraft to ditch in - he was one of the few to survive a belly landing in one.

 

Clostermann belly landed

- his (American) Bofors damaged Tempest on his airfield

- a Tempest on the airfield his old friend Jaques Remlinger was stationed with No.602 Spitfires. After doing aerobatics to show midget Spitfire pilots what a real aircraft was. It made im very popular amongst the whole bunch watching.

- on the shores of Dümmer lake on a little path in the forrest after being shot down, only to get mugged by American soldiers liberating him.

- into a tank trap right in front of Broadhurst that commented on the little Frenchman never failing to entertain him.

 

That guy is really something else. The usual procedure is that you had a very hard time landing a Tempest outside of recommended locations. Sheddan (IIRC) „landed“ his Tempest in some trees. They found him up there still attached to some pieces of metal, having broken just about everything in his body. That earned him a long vacation. Others were less lucky.

 

16 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

the key thing is not to hit an obstacle that will turn or flip the plane.

Not just that, key is not to ground loop. You‘ll come in at 170+ km/h and you‘ll stop in 2 seconds. As soon as something on the aircraft touches the ground, you‘re a passenger. If you bounced off, that was it.

[unreasonable]

Nice example of a P-51 being belly landed here: 8 seconds to stop in this case: probably optimum, on short grass airfield area.

 

https://worldwarwings.com/p-51-mustang-belly-landing-pilots-a-pro-but-still-lucky/

[St/JG3Schaefer40]

Ok, there were many nice belly landings, but I wanted another discussion, because normaly you don't survive a crash like this:

"In IL2 you can make a 350 km/h crash, maybe 10°-20° degrees, with a full tank + bombs on grass  or sometimes in a forest and survive in a damaged plane."

I would like to know, why it is like this and why there is no discussion at all?

 

[unreasonable]

11 minutes ago, St/JG3Schaefer40 said:

Ok, there were many nice belly landings, but I wanted another discussion, because normaly you don't survive a crash like this:

"In IL2 you can make a 350 km/h crash, maybe 10°-20° degrees, with a full tank + bombs on grass  or sometimes in a forest and survive in a damaged plane."

I would like to know, why it is like this and why there is no discussion at all?

 

 

I cannot discuss that because: 1) I have never survived anything remotely like that, and 2) you have not given us an actual in game example in video so that we can discuss a particular case, or 3) game test results showing that such outcomes are in fact common.

 

If you want to see a discussion of a particular topic you generally have to provide the material to get the herd going: all we have here is an unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[56RAF_Roblex]

I do see the OPs point.  The other day I was desperate to land and finish the mission before the map reset but I only had about 30 seconds left as I reached the airfield.  I had been racing home at full speed so there was no way I could shed that speed and land nicely.  I simply belly landed my Tempest at about 300mph and it was fine.    Generally, in BoX you can belly land any aircraft anywhere without risk of injury as long as you don't hit a tree.

[ZachariasX]

It appears to me that in this game, only vertical speed is considered for coming up with the lethality of a "landing". Effects like decelleration and being tossed around in a ground loop are not present. Whether that is good or bad is a different question. But accurately modelling survivabilty of a crash can be done, but it would be a lot of work. I wouldn't mind a simple exponantially growing risk over increased speed, wher you make impacts >300 km/h not survivable. At 250, barely. But otherwise I wouldn't invest too much on the topic. I'd rather have other things fixed first.

[SCG_motoadve]

No need to put many resources into it.

Forced landing If you flip the plane , it could be considered pilot wounded at least.

That way it gives the pilot motivation to make more careful forced landing, which would be more realistic.

Currently we just do forced landings at whatever speeds and terrain and we dont care too much, because we now its 100% survivable.

[56RAF_Roblex]

Could it be as simple as increasing the dynamic friction on fields or will that just make them stop faster rather than flip?   It would probably make it more likely a wing comes off which could make a flip very likely.    Perhaps they could also adapt the GLOC code so that excessive deceleration causes injuries that may be bad enough to kill.   

[vonGraf]

I'm quite new to this part of IL-2 and found it a bit strange the first time that I can easily land somewhere beside/near the runway with a Bf-109 without any problems.

In CloD I couldn't do that, led mostly to a total crash with tanks burning.