New DM

[Knarley-Bob]

20 minutes ago, US93_Furlow said:

Not entirely the whole picture as a FMJ bullet that hits a wooden spar will likely punch right through retaining most of its weight and a significant portion of its speed which means that only a portion of its energy is transferred to the spar and the rest wasted.  

Years ago, was doing some "testing"? with the 7.62x39. Not a real hot round, but of the FMJ class bullet. We fired it into an 18" piece of oak fire wood, with the grain. To our surprise, it didn't stop. Have also seen it penetrate live trees the diameter of one's head, cross grain and not stop. Now these would not be considered as armour piercing rounds either. So most likely one would be dealing with just holes, unless the projectile started to tumble. And if tumbling, pretty much all bets are off as to the damage that could/would be done as for wood loss,  impact forces and flight path of the projectile.

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

Good news @AnPetrovich thank you for getting back to us - we are waiting for your further findings!

 

To be honest I am a little bit scared now, that you have mentioned that on a D.VII it is up to 70% thiner that it ought to be?? ? What a flying tank will that be after you implement the corrections.

 

I hope you the guys from your team look into all types, also for ENTENTE, the WINGS of Dolphins fold extremely quick as well.

 

Sahaj

 

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

4 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Years ago, was doing some "testing"? with the 7.62x39. Not a real hot round, but of the FMJ class bullet. We fired it into an 18" piece of oak fire wood, with the grain. To our surprise, it didn't stop. Have also seen it penetrate live trees the diameter of one's head, cross grain and not stop. Now these would not be considered as armour piercing rounds either. So most likely one would be dealing with just holes, unless the projectile started to tumble. And if tumbling, pretty much all bets are off as to the damage that could/would be done as for wood loss,  impact forces and flight path of the projectile.

 

It won't get a chance to tumble unless it has hit some other part of the plane first.

[Knarley-Bob]

11 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

It won't get a chance to tumble unless it has hit some other part of the plane first.

Very true, we are talking about a "secondary" impact. UNLESS, the barrel has be shot out, and the bullet's initial hit is sideways. BUT that is another thing all together.

Taking into account that the bullet SOMETIMES will tumble, I believe would be opening a can of worms, and would not suggest trying to go there. I believe the DEVs have enough to worry about the way it is.

KB

Edited April 20, 2020 by Knarley-Bob

[J2_Bidu]

A concern for me is how surprising the disintegration  is for the pilot.

 

Does the game assume infinite strength from the human handling the controls? Is it really that easy to rip wings? Wouldn't you have to apply a disproportionate amount of strength that would probably act as a call sign? Also, wouldn't there be a significant noise caused by the stress on the structure, canvas, etc?

[No.23_Gaylion]

[Knarley-Bob]

Those would tend to tumble after impact. Kind of defeats the spirit of a humane war, if there is such a thing.

Side note: autoclaving them to prevent infection is moot, they would be contaminated just by handling them.

That is very interesting, thank you.....

KB

Edited April 20, 2020 by Knarley-Bob

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

yet another first person accounts  - all about spars

 

I had three fights, and managed to bring one down, crashed in a road. This I did with my Nieuport. After coming down I had to have five new planes, for the Hun had got about fifteen shots through my spars. Well, next I went up in my SE5 and had a very poo-poo time – five shots in my right strut, four in the planes, and two just behind my head. This was done by five Albatros Scouts, but I got one of them and set it on fire at 14,000 feet. Poor old chap inside. I should simply hate to be set on fire. 160 Captain Albert Ball, 56 Squadron, RFC

 

My engine was going splendidly, when all of a sudden at 4,000 feet (I had left the ground a few minutes only) there was a most awful bang and crash followed by frightful vibration and at the same time the whole machine shook convulsively in all directions. A cylinder with 100 horse power behind it had blown clean out of the engine going straight through the rear main spar of the top plane and shattering it, first ripping out one blade of a four bladed propeller. I at once switched off and shut off the power, but the engine was unfortunately able to revolve, as the remaining three blades of the propeller continued to revolve on account of resistance to the air as the machine descended. Because the engine minus a cylinder, and propeller minus a blade was shockingly unbalanced, therefore vibration and shaking took place and could not be stopped. Now imagine that descent to the ground (I descended as slow as possible, as the faster you went the worse the vibration), my gun in front jerked out of its mounting and was jumping from side to side, three drums containing 47 rounds of ammunition were caused by the vibration to leap from their positions and flew past me to make holes in the plane. Then the machine commenced to break up in the air, two struts broke in two. Piloting the machine while being thrown about and with the controls jumping in my hand was not exactly ideal, but to my astonishment I made a good landing, in luckily a good field and was unhurt. Wonderful escape as everyone says. 29 Captain Robert Hughes-Chamberlain, 24 Squadron, RFC

 

We were on patrol from 9 to 12 am and while at 9,000 feet, the clouds being about 7,000 feet, we saw our anti-aircraft guns firing at two flocks at 10,000 feet, one going home from south-west, the other from north-west. We headed off the flock coming from the south-west, consisting of ten machines. They were in formation, three lines of three and one behind. We had climbed to 9,500 feet and they passed over our heads. We turned, and I opened fire on the last machine, which was 200 yards above us and lower than the rest. The rear machines all opened fire and then the whole formation broke up and scattered. A general action ensued and we fought them for 15 minutes. We turned right and left, firing bursts into the machines as they dived at us; several fired down at us from above and on the flanks while we attacked those in front. I would glance round and see a Hun diving at our tail, signal Summers, and he would swing round, and I would put a burst at him, and we would turn again for another. There was a continuous crackling and bang of machine guns the whole time. We held our fire, and only let off at machines that got to ranges of 100 yards or less, as our ammunition consisted of seven drums only of 47 rounds. During the fight the Huns were reinforced by four others, so that we were at one time fighting 14 machines. They all engaged us. At one time a fast Hun biplane that was doing 95 an hour (air speed) came for our tail. Summers at a signal swung round. I covered him to 100 yards and pulled, but a gun stoppage occurred because the bag was choked with empty cartridges. A bullet from the Hun hit the clip on the drum and chipped a bit off the field glasses hung round my neck. Summers acted at once. As soon as he saw what had happened he put our machine’s nose down and the Hun bullets whizzed over our heads. The drum shot off overboard and I got another on as we turned to meet another machine. One machine I fired half a drum at went down in a steep nose-dive east of a town we were in front of. I was too busy to follow it and see if it crashed. The Huns broke off the fight one by one and when we had exhausted all our ammunition only two were still fighting us. When all our ammunition was done I signalled to Summers and he put our nose down and we got back across to our lines to the accompaniment of the Hun ‘Archies’. We dropped on our way back to 6,000 feet. We are jolly lucky to get back unscratched. There were two bullet holes in the undercarriage – the mechanical petrol pump shot away – holes in the tail, tail boom, main spars and wing, one through the nacelle in front of me. The Huns must have fired over 1,000 rounds at us, perhaps 2,000. It was all the time like being in the ‘butts’ during the ‘mad moment’ i.e. rapid fire. The bullets were singing past our heads all the time. It was gloriously exciting and I don’t think it can be said the RFC is inferior to the Huns when an FE2 B, a slow machine, fights 14 Huns, who are fought till they have all broken off the fight, and for 15 minutes and their formation scattered. Summers is a star pilot and no mistake. 75 Lieutenant W O Tudor-Hart, 22 Squadron, RFC

 

I went up with Duke at 11.30 am, my machine to shoot on ‘F. 73’, but just as we got over High Wood, an ‘Archie’ burst practically on us. I turned and found 

both main spars and inner struts on right bottom plane were smashed and the wing riddled. I got a nasty bruise on my fingers but got safely back. 7 Lieutenant Francis Cave, 4 Squadron, RFC

 

Had a shoot on ‘F. 73’ but had our main spar and landing wire shot through, so returned. The Major was very bucked with us going up again and complimented us and said he would tell the Colonel. The Colonel happened to turn up just after and he didn’t know what to say, but felt he had to compliment us. I have managed to keep a few small pieces of the ‘Archie’. I have had the wind up and a bad headache for the rest of the day. 8 Lieutenant Francis Cave, 4 Squadron, RFC

 

As soon as we poked our nose across No Man’s Land the ever watchful anti-aircraft guns started up. I looked across the five miles or so between us and Parker’s machine. It was easy to spot. Parker was lower than we were and making for his target, as always, like a bull at a gate. His machine was surrounded by the rather innocent-looking white puffs of shrapnel and by the very much more vicious and noisy black bursts of high explosives. Meanwhile the gunners were putting up a spectacular display around our machine. It had been hit a number of times by stray fragments but the damage was superficial. We saw the balloon starting to descend and soon it was going down at an astonishing rate, swaying drunkenly under the pull of the winch cable. Ball started to dive and the next moments were a confused jumble of sights and sounds. Men running as we fired down on the balloon, machine gunning from emplacements round the winch site, a glimpse of the balloon observer floating down by parachute, a exploding shell knocking off a chunk of our port lower wingtip and fracturing a main spar. Ball was yelling at me to keep my eyes skinned for Huns as I switched the Lewis gun onto the rear mounting and we started for home. Fortunately, the sky was empty of aircraft. 26 Second Lieutenant Tim Hervey, 8 Squadron, RFC

 

 

On Wednesday, August 9th, I attacked a balloon with a BE, and forced the observer to jump out. On the way back from this job, my main spar and wing tip was crashed, but we got back to the aerodrome. Lieutenant Hervey was my observer . . .25 Second Lieutenant Albert Ball, 8 Squadron, RFC

 

Met 12 Huns. No. 1 fight. I attacked and fired two drums, bringing the machine down just outside a village. All crashed up. No. 2 fight. I attacked and got under machine, putting in two drums. Hun went down in flames. No. 3 fight. I attacked and put in one drum. Machine went down and crashed on a housetop. All these fights were seen and reported by other machines that saw them go down. I only got hit 11 times in the planes, so I returned and got more ammunition. This time luck was not all on the spot. I was met by about 14 Huns, about 15 miles over their side. My windscreen was hit in four places, mirror broken, the spar of the left plane broken, also engine ran out of petrol. But I had good sport and good luck, but only just, for I was brought down about one mile over our side. 28 Lieutenant Albert Ball, 11 Squadron, RFC

 

 

I watched the mechanics stripping the canvas from the fuselage of my machine. They said the spars and longerons were riddled with bullet holes and were surprised the machine held together. So ended my first serious encounter with the enemy. Another lesson learned - to rely on one’s own observation in future. I was very fortunate not to have received any of the shots fired. 14 Second Lieutenant Frank Ransley, 48 Squadron

 

Went further north towards Albert. ‘Archie’ evidently watched our unsuspecting approach and carefully waited for us. Had not thought of an ‘Archie’ battery being up so quickly. Had nearly got over Albert when he put up a fearful burst at us. The first one did all the damage. It was as near a direct hit as possible. Blew about a dozen large holes in the tail and fuselage, shot the main spar of the lower plane through and sprinkled the whole machine liberally with small holes. The observer’s luck was dead in as a chunk went right through his seat while he was standing up and missed him by a fraction. The machine went right out of control with the explosion and I thought the tail had gone. However I soon got control again, found she was alright and proceeded to go home very carefully. The machine was so badly damaged that it was written off. 52 Second Lieutenant William Butler, 8 Squadron

 

I got up at 4am and went out alone. I saw two balloons put up so I went after them, but they were so far over that they were on the ground before I arrived. The ‘Archie’ and machine guns were something terrible - I was sure scared. There were literally thousands of ‘Archie’ shells bursting. They all seemed to concentrate on me. As I passed over some Hun infantry I dropped my bombs. That evened things up a bit, making ‘Archie’ madder than ever. The Huns seemed to think that they had me scared out, because as soon as I reached our line they put two kite balloons up. I waited until they were up a few hundred feet then I dashed back. I put a stream of incendiary bullets into one and down it went in flames. I just yelled with delight. The machine guns were so busy that I had to clear away at once. There were bullets all through my machine. I started after the second balloon, which was about 3 miles away. How those Huns struggled to get it down before I got there. My engine was hit so it kept stopping. This delayed me so long that the balloon was only 500 feet up when I got there. They immediately put a barrage up between me and the balloon. I could see their flaming bullets going through my machine. It was not a pleasant job. I could see where bullets had gone through my main spars. I dived through the barrage and fired incendiary bullets into the balloon at close range. The observer jumped out in his parachute. The ‘sausage’ burst into flames so I was once more moved to let out a yell of delight, also hoping that the observer would break his neck landing. Mad - say those Huns must have been wild! They threw more hate at me than ever. I’ll bet the shells they used cost the Kaiser ten times as much as my machine cost the RAF. I crossed No Man’s Land at 1,000 feet and thanks to the Huns’ rotten marksmanship I got through safely. Two Huns before breakfast - isn’t that luck? 32 Lieutenant Edgar Taylor, 79 Squadron

 

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

28 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Those would tend to tumble after impact. Kind of defeats the spirit of a humane war, if there is such a thing.

Side note: autoclaving them to prevent infection is moot, they would be contaminated just by handling them.

That is very interesting, thank you.....

KB

 

And still after a few inches on flesh.  On most plane parts, it'd be right through.

[Knarley-Bob]

4 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

And still after a few inches on flesh.  On most plane parts, it'd be right through.

Yes flesh & wood react differently to bullets. One would believe that in flesh, the deviation of the flight path would be greater. Even if tumbling from a wood strike, I believe the trajectory would be more in a straight line, the size of the hole it makes would differ as the projectile impacted different parts, if indeed it did impact any more.

So yes, you are correct, on most plane parts it'd be right through.

KB

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 hour ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

Nice bit of info there, but you miss the point that the weighting was designed to inflict MORE severe gunshot wounds IN THE HUMAN BODY by tumbling once it hits and unless you happen to be Pinocchio thats pretty soft stuff, reletively.  The denser the material (hardwood) the less likely the round is to deviate (tumble) after it's inital entry,   I don't think they were particularly concerned with trying to inflict more damage to an inanimate object unless it was for a special purpose and to the best of my knowledge they didn't have, or should I say USE (much), a round designed to create extra destruction in airframes, unlike, for example, an armoured piercing round that might be used to damage an engine.  It's nice to think that, having created an extra horrific wound, because they could, they were concerned about the poor little lamb getting a nasty infection afterwards.  Presumably that just wouldn't have been cricket.  If you look further back in this thread you will see a video I posted of an M-60, fake Vickers (7.62mm) being used to shoot a propeller, it shows a pretty clean exit hole, unlike the mess you would expect to see if it came out of a body, especially if it got knocked off balance by hitting a hard bit in the center ( there are a couple of caviates with the video but they only muddy the water).

[Knarley-Bob]

A tail heavy bullet is more accurate than a nose heavy bullet. It's the nose, that is made of different materials is the part designed to do the damage. The "autoclave crap " was nothing but PR.

Shooting an FMJ through a piece of wood at point blank range proves, that you can shoot a FMJ through a piece of wood at point blank range. At that range a  lead alloy bullet would do the same thing.

Now, I'll bet dollars to donuts, That the cylinders on those engines were made of cast iron? Perhaps with a steel sleeve? Cast is brittle, so would be the other cast parts on an engine, one would NOT need armour piercing rounds to punch a hole in an engine cylinder ,carbs, or other cast parts. Thin steel parts as gas/oil tanks or pans would also be very vulnerable. A 174gr. bullet @ 2440 fps. isn't much to sneeze at, it will back a punch. Range to 3000 yards? Uff-dah.

I'm just glad I'm doing this for pretend.......

Edited April 20, 2020 by Knarley-Bob

[No.23_Gaylion]

You can't compare standard rounds of today with rounds back then. Too many differences.

 

Also, I posted that video, lol.

 

Need someone with a .303 Enfield with mk7 ammo to go shoot some boards and see what happens for science.

 

Anecdotal evidence:

 

Reading historical USAS accounts they often mention "explosive ammunition" that the germans used.

 

We know they didn't use explosive ammunition now and the ONLY explanation of this phenomenon is rounds fragmenting upon impact.

 

I theorize based on the construction of that round that it will mostly fragment upon impact with a hard object.

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by US213_Talbot

[J5_Gamecock]

Photo's from the Vintage Aviator website show the constuction of Albatros wing. You can see that the spar in the photos is laminated, that is made up of different layers. This would add much more strength. Glues and adhesives from 100 years ago would be much more susceptible to deterioration from humidity etc. than ones used today, so they wouldn't be quite as strong, but I'll bet the techniques used were very similar.

  

 

https://thevintageaviator.co.nz/content/albatros-dva-framework?page=0%2C0

19 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

Need someone with a .303 Enfield with mk7 ammo to go shoot some boards and see what happens for science.

 Best I could find. 

 

[Knarley-Bob]

Thanks for the video. A soft point is probably fairly close to what they sere shooting, with that "special" tip. Shows what it does to wood, thin sheet steel, and concrete, which is brittle and would be a fair representation of cast iron. The iron wouldn't fly apart exactly like the concrete, but imagine having pistons and all the clock works moving quite rapidly as it came apart.

KB

I have new respect for that .303 round......

[76SQN-FatherTed]

So that Mk VII round would have been developed when all they were thinking of shooting rifles at was people (and possibly horses).  Would air warfare have been the first time that small arms were deliberately deployed against non-living targets?

 

Not sure how that helps with the DM debate, but just interested me.

[Knarley-Bob]

Most likely, yes.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Answered his poll.  Said 20, going for the likelyhood that one or two rounds get some lengthwise travel through bits (it is occurring from "dead six", this is important), and another couple more hit the "spar" equivalent, and the craft is traveling at speed, so experiencing fast air and drag.  Stationary I would have gone much higher.  Also, once you start adding angles, up or down, my number climbs.

 

Honestly, I have no idea beyond the experience of "sawing" the tops off two-by-fours doing shooting drills in my youth.

Edited April 20, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[Raven109]

They seem to be collecting data to feed into their statistical model, so that it matches better what the community expects. 

[J5_Adam]

Or like quite a few others are already saying, "it's a "gotcha" question"

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

2 minutes ago, Adam said:

Or like quite a few others are already saying, "it's a "gotcha" question"

 

 

It is like before:  "Show me the video I know does not exist".  mlln

Edited April 20, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[AnPetrovich]

46 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

It is like before:  "Show me the video I know does not exist".  mlln

 

Thank you for your support.

Spoiler

 

 

[J5_Gamecock]

Even from dead six, some "hits" will pass through the wing doing minor damage. I'm thinking that the number of overall hits to a"section", (1/3) of the wing would be rather high before enough concentrated damage is done to cause the wing to fail.

[DD_Arthur]

Thanks for doing this Petrov. I note it’s 02.37 in Moscow?

[J5_Gamecock]

2 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Thanks for doing this Petrov. I note it’s 02.37 in Moscow?

Agreed... Thx

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

18 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

 

Thank you for your support.

  Hide contents

 

 

 

As others have pointed out, 2x4's are not the same as the internals of a WW1 aircraft.  Even all 2x4's are not created equal, depending on their intended use.  We would need to construct an actual wing and shoot at it...which would be fun.

 

If shooting at 2x4's is what you had in mind, then I withdraw my comment; but I had thought you meant something more representative.  My apologies.

 

As to how many shots to snap the 2x4:  6 with .40 caliber ball, with the "4" side facing the shooter.  5 evenly spaced in a line where you want it to snap, followed by 1 at the top of the board to snap it back.  With the "2" side facing the shooter, 3 to 4.

[J5_Adam]

He’s pretty damn close to the target too in the video

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Those guns were 600 RPMs my shooting is good - most on the target when target is close and fly straight. How many % would pass through ... Imagine if I pull the trigger for 3 second and that Camel wing would collapse without any strain (1G) , I would  say it's to quick. Our guesses / esstimates are right guys or just herd pool  ?? 

BTW for me the  problem is when damaged wing is put to centrifugal forces and snap to quickly  not when flying at 1G . Those things are related but even now is hard to shoot wing off when plane is flying straight. 

Edited April 21, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[unreasonable]

Testing, I counted about 15 puffs on the outer wing before it started to lift away - the mission texts has a recorded 25 "AMMO:BULLET_GER_7-92x57_AP" entries altogether, which included a few off target hits on the fuselage, (I am out of practice and have a fairly sensitive control set up). So I put 20 (20) in the poll but I could just as well say +/- 5 to that.

 

Seems about right to me. Put in a hard turn and the wing would have failed much earlier, but based on my own test I would certainly not be deliberately aiming at the wings, as was the norm when playing vanilla RoF.  

 

Based on AnP's reports about the testing the team now has available, he knows exactly how many shots are required on average and also the spread of outcomes. I suppose he could just tell us..... 

 

PS I was taught that no growing tree under 24 inches thick should ever be considered as cover from small arms fire. Dry wood is even worse.

 

 

 

  

Edited April 21, 2020 by unreasonable

[AnPetrovich]

Yes, I expect that some of you will perform this in-game test by yourself. I like it, it's very welcome. Sometimes our feeling does not match what we really have. Just because of our nature of perception. Thus, well performed test or an experiment could help much to figure out what is really going on.

 

I'm not just asking you in that poll. I'm going to give you a feedback in a couple days, after the majority number of you are answered. I will write the result of our own tests (I use a special dev.tool for this, I will tell you later about it) and we will compare your and our expectations with what we have right now and where we go. Hold on, keep tuned!

[ZachariasX]

I think a big issue is not just when the wings come off just from bullet damage alone, but also how the progressive weakening of the wing will occur. 

 

Example: if it takes 50 bullets to make a wing go that can take 5 g‘s, do 20 bullets take away 2 g‘s strength?

 

I don‘t think so. I think the wing should hold much longer until it starts to lose significantly in strenght. I‘d expect a significant weakening only after many hits. But when this weakening happens, it will not take much to tear them off in maneuvers or it will only take few bullets more to make it collapse.

[kendo]

Thinking about the poll question. Haven't answered yet. Trying to convert my experience in game (of getting a half-second or one-second burst of fire on target) to number of bullets that represents >>>

 

From internet ? I get 400-500 RPM per gun allowing for synchronization, so taking 450 x 2 = 900 RPM

So, a one-second burst is 15 bullets.

 

Also, useful pics of a Camel wing.

 

http://www.johnsshawaviation.co.uk/wordpress/sopwith-camel-f1-2/sopwith-camel-reconstruction/sopwith-camel-construction-lower-wings/

 

 

[emely]

20 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 

 Best I could find. 

 

Indeed ?  In this case, I will add a little more.  You should not consider all these videos as direct evidence of any version.  I think this is just a way to plunge a little more into our topic.

 

 

The following video is most interesting in that you can see the difference between the inlet and outlet and the destruction of the structure inside the log

 

21 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Nice bit of info there

There is more if you look nearby ?

https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:FG303b.jpg

[emely]

"Despite the existing international ban, explosive bullets found widespread use in aviation during the First World War, as they were very effective in the fight against aerostats and weakly protected enemy aircraft" (c)

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

3 hours ago, kendo said:

 

From internet ? I get 400-500 RPM per gun allowing for synchronization, so taking 450 x 2 = 900 RPM

So, a one-second burst is 15 bullets.

 

 

 

 

It may be less than that according to the Blue Max

 

"Stachel, I read the armaments report. Your guns were jammed. You only fired 40 rounds"

 

 

"Two 3 second bursts....Is you marksmanship that good?"

 

 

 

I answered 35 (5) in the poll but wonder how they will extrapolate the hits needed to blow off a section of wing to failure resulting to wing loading under stress.

Edited April 21, 2020 by J5_Klugermann

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Has anyone done any analysis and likely necessary interpolation of historical data to propose:

% of planes were downed due to critical structural damage not the result of any of the causes listed below but by enemy aircraft ammunition.

 

% of planes downed due to mid air collision.  Likely machine crashed with pilot lost.

 

% of planes downed due to loss of control i.e. control surfaces/wires damaged. Potential to land out. Likely machine crashed with pilot lost X% of time.

 

% of planes downed due to fuel tank explosion/fire. Pilot and machine lost.

 

% of planes downed due to pilot shot/wounded/killed. Machine and pilot lost.

 

% of planes downed due to critical engine or related system hit.  Likely landed out; possible pilot shot after plane disabled resulting in loss of machine and pilot.

 

% of planes lost due to pilot error. I.e. landing and stalls. Machine loss and high risk of pilot death.

 

I would guess that the above is close to the order of reasons for lost planes from least common to most common.  

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by J5_Baeumer

[ST_Nooney]

Yes and whats the % of Caster oil ingestion and the pilot shitting himself and slipping right out the plane inverted?

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

The point is that the adjustment or correction should create a environment where we aren't unrealistically representing plane loss due to the structural damage of a wing spar which likely was the least frequent cause of plane loss.  Since the 4.005 patch it has become the most frequent cause.   Andy seems interested in probabilities and I would agree they are important....in understanding where to place the emphasis on what it takes to down a plane and pilot.

 

PS I'll let you do the research you propose Nooney

Edited April 21, 2020 by J5_Baeumer

[ST_Nooney]

2 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

 

 

PS I'll let you do the research you propose Nooney

I could try it but not at 9,000 feet Beaumer, messy

[J5_HellCat_]

45 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

% of planes were downed due to critical structural damage not the result of any of the causes listed below but by enemy aircraft ammunition.

 

% of planes downed due to loss of control i.e. control surfaces/wires damaged. Potential to land out. Likely machine crashed with pilot lost X% of time.

 

% of planes downed due to pilot shot/wounded/killed. Machine and pilot lost.

 

% of planes downed due to critical engine or related system hit.  Likely landed out; possible pilot shot after plane disabled resulting in loss of machine and pilot.

 

 

The % of these combo's might be tough to tally being dead men tell no tales ...we would have to base it off  the memoir's of shooters who kept them.

Edited April 21, 2020 by J5_HellCat_