Is the P51 made out from the panzer armor?

[Lusekofte]

All I am saying is. The P 51 goes down in first attack , but in a more believable way. I find it unbelievable that the P 47 should disintegrate with the same treatment. And P 38 is cut in half about 98% of the time. I will grant the 110 the same attention since it also go down in a very predictable way. 
I know we can’t expect perfection but I would be happy if that would be tweaked 

[Voidhunger]

2 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

I will grant the 110 the same attention since it also go down in a very predictable way. 

Its the same for FW190 and BF109 wings. You can find something on every plane.

P47 durability like all DM model is fine.

 

[danielprates]

22 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

All I am saying is. The P 51 goes down in first attack , but in a more believable way. I find it unbelievable that the P 47 should disintegrate with the same treatment. And P 38 is cut in half about 98% of the time. I will grant the 110 the same attention since it also go down in a very predictable way. 
I know we can’t expect perfection but I would be happy if that would be tweaked 

 

Just to be clear, I was talking about the whole dewing issue in general, which is already old somewhat and has been discussed many times before and always finds a way to creep in other discussions. When it comes to the mustang specifically, I don't know really, I haven't got too much time on it/against it.

[kurtj]

15 hours ago, 71st_AH_Rob_XR-R said:

I think the important factor to note is you generally do not see aircraft in gun camera footage loosing wings from cannon impacts.

I agree, as the vast majority of gun cam available is from non-cannon-armed American aircraft.

 

Most of the cannon footage is attacks on heavy bombers, which have enormous wing spars.

 

That said, here's a nice streak of wings and chunks of wings breaking from .50's. I count at least four, including a 110.

 

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I don't believe we have adequate evidence to definitively  say either way, as the evidence we do have is a mix of results and a very small sample size.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by kurtj

[Mac_Messer]

21 hours ago, danielprates said:

So as in RL, if a bullet hits close to the wing roots, they may - just may - fall off. That's precise enough for me. Anything beyond that is a pointless discussion: in RL dewinging happened "x %" of the time (which we don't know cause the data is nonexistent) whereas 

in the game it happens "y %" of the time (which we really don't know either, only isolated reports by simmers who "kinda" feel it happens too often).

Because the vast majority here does not have any real idea about ballistics vs plane structure. And so most of us have an imagining of what happened in WWII aerial combat, rather than anything close to the real picture.

 

The thread could be split to multiple different threads.

Radial engines DM.

Inline engines DM.

P47 vs the rest DM.

P51 vs the rest DM.

 

And I think each would have a fair case. Different problems for one DM and different complaints. My complaint would be why machinegun rounds tend to cause structural airframe failure when not caused by ammobox/fueltank/engine explosion whereas any cannon ammo shedding wings or other airframe parts seems logical to me.

[Cpt_Siddy]

Does P-47 still lose parts in dives? 

[Rjel]

23 hours ago, kurtj said:

 

That said, here's a nice streak of wings and chunks of wings breaking from .50's. I count at least four, including a 110.

 

I bought a VHS copy of the long version of Fight for the Sky in 1980. I can't even estimate how many times I watched that tape, then DVD copies and YouTube versions through the last 39 years. I've always wondered why that Bf-110 pulls its left wing off? I know it's getting hit but it makes me think the pilot overstressed the plane and the wing failed as he tried to escape. One of the more dramatic sequences in that film. 

[MikhaVT]

On 11/23/2019 at 5:42 PM, kurtj said:

Perhaps I should have led off with this video, which has been in the back of my mind... look how small the bushings are that hold the P-47 wings on... not much larger than a .50 round! Far different than large spars that run through the fuselage. I can imagine AP 20 or 30mm would do some pretty decent work on something that small, and that's before wing loading and the aircraft weight (as mentioned before) is considered. I wonder if the simulation has uncovered a historical weakness that wasn't widely known due to survivorship bias... not a good chance of RTB after losing a wing

 

 

 

Great video, i find it almost hard to believe the engineers were okay with that little holding the wings on for a combat aircraft. While losing 1/4th of a wing root's total strength may not be catastrophic for many aircraft, in this case losing one of the bottom 2 hinges easily could. At that point the remaining three hinges are sharing the shear while the top two hinges bear the compressive load (should still be within their design load if there's a reasonable factor of safety and G-limit is not exceeded). The one bottom hinge is now bearing all of the tensile load from the wing, and i'm not sure if that would have been designed with a >2.0 factor of safety. If that last bottom hinge fails the wing is probably just going to fold up. 

 

Another issue that likely compounds the DM issues is that the devs are generally working with the best available information from the time. So a manual, or technical sheet might say that the P-47 is rated to survive 11Gs, but we dont know how much factor of safety was put on those numbers nor do we know what drove that limit. For all we know the aircraft might have had something like a 1.2 factor of safety making it good to operate up to 13.2Gs, but only stated as 11 to cover some asses/leave room in case things got heavier later. It could also very-well be that the factor of safety on those hinges is something absurd like 3, but unless we can find something saying that in the records it means nothing since it's speculation. Without records the only real option would be to get drawings of those parts and figure out what the max stress before failure should be on those parts comparing it to the wingload under max G scenarios. This latter one is fairly easy if you A) have a mechanical engineer handy and B) have access to the drawings. Unfortunately point B is often difficult to come across. 

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

All I know is that when I hit P38s, usually it's in an A8 from about 50m with 2x30mm, 2x20mm, and 2x13mm. So they cut clear in half easily. Sometimes if they catch me running up on them and turn hard, I get to put all that right into the elevator which comes right off. If it didn't with all that ordinance hitting, I'd be amazed. 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Ein_Feindlicher_Flieger

[Legioneod]

6 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Does P-47 still lose parts in dives? 

Yes, unfortunately.

[Pict]

On 11/24/2019 at 6:27 PM, kurtj said:

I agree, as the vast majority of gun cam available is from non-cannon-armed American aircraft.

 

Most of the cannon footage is attacks on heavy bombers, which have enormous wing spars.

 

That said, here's a nice streak of wings and chunks of wings breaking from .50's. I count at least four, including a 110.

 

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I don't believe we have adequate evidence to definitively  say either way, as the evidence we do have is a mix of results and a very small sample size.

 

 

 

"Our fighters engage the enemy all over the sky...often out numbered" ??? 

 

This looks awful like a Spitfire Mk.IX or Mk.XVI. I never knew "the enemy" were flying them 

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

[PikAss]

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 10:54 PM, Pict said:

"Our fighters engage the enemy all over the sky...often out numbered" ??? 

 

Yeah, it is not wrong tho. The 8th and 9th Air Force often or mostly fought with lower numbers on fighters till 1945 over Germany. Yeah, the cool myth of "POOR GERMAN ACES KNIGHTS OF THE AIR HAD NO CHANCES AGAINST NUMBERS BUT THEY NEVER LOST IN 1VS1 ENCOUNTERS!!!111111111"

 

The US Escort fighters got attacked by a high number of fighters over Germany, especially for P51 and P38 a pain in the A$$ while travelling so Deep into Germany. But attacking enemy fighters who want to destroy the Bombers is easy too.

[Voidhunger]

This Mustang took hit into the engine from Mk108, he was fighting like hell for 8minut like nothing happened until i hit him with 2 more Mk108 rounds.

No smoke, no oil leak, nothing.

 

 

[Sublime]

On 11/23/2019 at 1:04 AM, Emu_Sunde said:

So you are insinuating that the devs on purpose disregard historical data in order to balance the game so axis is favored? 
Dont know about you guys, but thats a pretty serious issue, and might need looking into further, what a shame... Obviously it not just you being sad that your favorite UFO's are getting fixed so they perform like they should, realistically? 
  As far as feelings go, i'v not found the mustang to be more durable than the 109 shooting at it, the P-38 is imo harder to bring down (makes sense that it is), unless you hit the elevator with  a 30mm, that usually ends the fight rather quick. 
   

I dont think the devs try to balance things for the Axis.

I do think perhaps theres an error in the damage modelling of the P47 or it simply needs to be looked at. Even without shooting a simple test will reveal a problem - enter a dive and go fast... really fast. The wings etc fall off.  Yes yes, this should happen, but the P47 should probably have the highest dive tolerances in the game.. and it doesnt.  Further it was famed for its energy retention 'zoom' ability.. There isnt much of one right now.

I think if they changed it, it may not have had anything to do with complaints though it perhaps seemed like it did...  Regardless the P47 needs to be looked at IMO