Jump to content

Braced vs cantilever design - engineers needed


US93_Rummell
 Share

Recommended Posts

US93_Rummell

Salute friends! Could anyone of you explain the key advantages and disadvantages of braced vs cantilever wings in these ww1 birds? From what I’ve read, the cantilever design means a heavier spar but removes the need for bracing which causes more drag. Ultimately it was the future and featured the the small birds I fly 100 years on, so was clearly the better design in the long term.

 

That being said, would lots of wires spreading the load actually mean more points of failure so potentially an advantage vs rifle rounds? 
 

Also, why would a cantilever structure be more resistant to the entire top plane ripping from the struts? Surely a Spad with inter-plane struts as well as outer struts would hold the entire top wing on stronger than say the fewer connections on a Dvii? I can see why a section of a plane might fail if the spar and bracing is damaged at a point along the spar, but surely you wouldnt lose an entire surface end to end in that situation?

 

Im not an engineer, but if anyone does have that background id love to know more about the key differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZachariasX
7 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Im not an engineer, but if anyone does have that background id love to know more about the key differences.

This discussion has indeed no future if it is related to bullet damage, as it also had nothing to do with the basic layout chosen for the plane. If you are sitting yourself at the center of the receiving end of machine gun fire without any protection whatsoever, then bullet tolerance can‘t be a sane central design criterium besides making things as robust as possible once you have chosen your basic design.

 

If you are interested in possible reasons why designers swapped back and forth between wing configurations this thread at theaerodrome might be of interest to you:

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=74040

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1PL-Husar-1Esk

I'm practical men, they're also,  they know how to proper fix the DM problem,  they engineer said between words how it would be done,  no RNG more hitboxes and optimization is a must.  Not easy problem to tackle but doable if resources were available but are not. There is second approach less time consuming, less accurate but might work as good as first.  We will see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Rummell

I’m genuinely interested in the main advantages of cantilever vs braced wing designs particularly with reference to durability.

 

If any of you have engineering experience I’d like to hear it. Mr Serpent, a pleasure as always. Hope to meet you in the virtual skies or on Discord for a chat someday 🙂 Much better than hiding anonymously behind a keyboard on a forum and making disparaging remarks. The regular J5 Discord community are really decent chaps!

Edited by US93_Rummell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HagarTheHorrible

You’re asking the impossible, it really would be a specialism within a specialism.
 As far as I know most Scouts from the period were built to sustain approx 6G and, despite the perfect testing ground, the world did not see a raft of D VII and VIII clones emerge after the war, even though the major builders all had access to extensive testing and test data.  The cantilever might have been the future but the evidence suggests it was merely one potential design amongst many and while it might have had it’s benefits it also must have had it’s issues that were unsolved at the time and that might have been down to nothing more than simply the glues available to manufactures.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holtzauge
13 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Salute friends! Could anyone of you explain the key advantages and disadvantages of braced vs cantilever wings in these ww1 birds? From what I’ve read, the cantilever design means a heavier spar but removes the need for bracing which causes more drag. Ultimately it was the future and featured the the small birds I fly 100 years on, so was clearly the better design in the long term.

 

That being said, would lots of wires spreading the load actually mean more points of failure so potentially an advantage vs rifle rounds? 
 

Also, why would a cantilever structure be more resistant to the entire top plane ripping from the struts? Surely a Spad with inter-plane struts as well as outer struts would hold the entire top wing on stronger than say the fewer connections on a Dvii? I can see why a section of a plane might fail if the spar and bracing is damaged at a point along the spar, but surely you wouldnt lose an entire surface end to end in that situation?

 

Im not an engineer, but if anyone does have that background id love to know more about the key differences.

 

Not blowing my horn but I happen to be an aeronautical engineer. I have of course not designed WW1 braced aeroplanes but I do claim to have an understanding of structural engineering since I majored in aerodynamics and structural design and have designed jet airplane and glider structures.

 

Not that it's going to change anything but my professional opinion is that it's currently way too easy to de-wing a plane wing in FC with rifle-caliber ammunition. I know the developers introduced a new spar model based on scientific grounds and that is all very fine but even so the effects we see in-game are not what I would expect so maybe hit box and probability models need to be adjusted? However, only the developers who have the DM code will know how to fix this but something needs to be done IMHO. When it comes to "proof" for my statement, this is spread out over a number of posts in this mega 22 page thread which is now closed so no need to regurgitate it here. The posts outlining from an engineering perspective why it should be harder to de-wing in the first place and why the difference between cantilever and braced designs should be smaller are all still there.

 

I really don’t want to rain on the parade but TBH, while I was very glad to hear the announcement for FC2, my enthusiasm for FC3 is wilting by the day due to the current state of the DM which also for some strange reason nowdays also includes a control lockup feature due to battle damage which occurs way too often.

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1PL-Husar-1Esk
1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

DM which also for some strange reason nowdays also includes a control lockup feature due to battle damage which occurs way too often.

Those old crates (most) don't use push rods to be jammed in first place, now it's always and to frequent aileron control rods jammed, you are hit in left upper aileron in Camel and all 4 aileron  are jammed instantly. If that aileron was not in neutral position - you are dead. Where in reali life there where cables, wires and hinges when destroyed, one aileron shoud just flopp in the air but rest shuld work fine and you could continnue to fight.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ST_Catchov

Well said @Holtzauge. My enthusiasm has also waned. But I'll persist, as long as I still breathe there is hope. Move aside, discontent.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Rummell
22 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Not blowing my horn but I happen to be an aeronautical engineer. I have of course not designed WW1 braced aeroplanes but I do claim to have an understanding of structural engineering since I majored in aerodynamics and structural design and have designed jet airplane and glider structures.

 

Not that it's going to change anything but my professional opinion is that it's currently way too easy to de-wing a plane wing in FC with rifle-caliber ammunition. I know the developers introduced a new spar model based on scientific grounds and that is all very fine but even so the effects we see in-game are not what I would expect so maybe hit box and probability models need to be adjusted? However, only the developers who have the DM code will know how to fix this but something needs to be done IMHO. When it comes to "proof" for my statement, this is spread out over a number of posts in this mega 22 page thread which is now closed so no need to regurgitate it here. The posts outlining from an engineering perspective why it should be harder to de-wing in the first place and why the difference between cantilever and braced designs should be smaller are all still there.

 

I really don’t want to rain on the parade but TBH, while I was very glad to hear the announcement for FC2, my enthusiasm for FC3 is wilting by the day due to the current state of the DM which also for some strange reason nowdays also includes a control lockup feature due to battle damage which occurs way too often.

Hey! Any chance you could summarise in a few points and direct to any free online reading?

 

Good point on how one design didn’t immediately dominate after the war. I guess if one was considerably more successful than the other designers would have abandoned outmoded configurations. I can think of plenty of biplanes made after ww1 which even served in ww2 which used bracing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J2_Trupobaw

Let's not mix economy and engineering :). Remember that the aviation industry went into decline in 1920s, with German companies abandoning production and Entente going bancktrupt or low profile with sudden shortage of orders and covilian market full of surplus. There was no cantilever wings explosion because companies had no budget for experimentation with German designs and went with tried and tested. The same period saw British abandoning their arguably best fighter, Martinsyde Viper (with manufacturer going bancktrupt) and settling for inferior but cheaper Snipe as peactime fighter. Quality was no longer affordable. Once re-militarisation was back by 1930s everybody rediscovered cantilever wings and never looked back. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holtzauge
On 9/4/2021 at 3:28 PM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Those old crates (most) don't use push rods to be jammed in first place, now it's always and to frequent aileron control rods jammed, you are hit in left upper aileron in Camel and all 4 aileron  are jammed instantly. If that aileron was not in neutral position - you are dead. Where in reali life there where cables, wires and hinges when destroyed, one aileron shoud just flopp in the air but rest shuld work fine and you could continnue to fight.

 

Exactly: WW1 wire type controls should not lock up but weather wane if control cable is severed. In addition, many scouts have double elevator cable systems so the risk of loosing both must be infinitesimal.

 

I have not studied the aileron circuit though: If you have push rods and lose one side you should still be able to move the other but in a cable system you may lose both sides if cable is severed on one side. I have not looked at that and it will probably wary from design to design.

 

Interestingly, as far as I gather from Mikael Carson regarding Fokker Dr.1 directional stability, if you lose one rudder cable you will most likely crash a Dr.1 because it has no inherent direction stability and must be actively steered in yaw all the time. Javier Arango said the same about the Sopwith Camel.

 

6 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Hey! Any chance you could summarise in a few points and direct to any free online reading?

 

Good point on how one design didn’t immediately dominate after the war. I guess if one was considerably more successful than the other designers would have abandoned outmoded configurations. I can think of plenty of biplanes made after ww1 which even served in ww2 which used bracing.

 

I wish I could summarize but I think I did close to 15 posts in the 4.006 DM discussion thread about this and in addition, there were a lot of other posts there with good information and @ZachariasX had some nice figures on load paths in a braced wings so I still think starting on page 1 and working your way through it is the best way to go so sorry, no shortcuts! ;)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Braced designs offered several disadvantages to cantilever designs.  The Entente adopter them after flawed tests the British conducted indicated that thin wings had much less drag than thick wings like seen on the Fokkers.  However, when the Germans conducted tests in a full-sized wind tunnel, they found that thick wings offered more lift for a similar amount of drag.  I assume the thicker wings also gave space to fit a cantilever spar into the wing which is why the cantilever designs were the only designs with thick wings.  Looking through combat reports, it doesn’t appear that braced designs were more prone to falling apart and in Winged Victory, Yeates seemed convinced that the Fokker Triplanes were more prone to falling apart than other types of scouts at the front.  It also seems fairly rare that control wires were shot through and instead controls were lost after the stick or something else was hit.  I remember one quote from an SE pilot who had the stick jerked out of their hand and couldn’t figure out what caused it until the mechanic cut off a strip of fabric from the wing and noticed that the aileron wire had been hit and was only connected by three strands, so I don’t think it would have supported any really violent force.  However, it’s things like these that show how poorly the current damage model represents the reality of WWI.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J2_Trupobaw

Junkers J.I was using pushing rods instead of wires as they were less likely to be severed by gunfire. But whether it came from genuine experiences of losing wires or Germans overengineering their bulletproof plane, I don't know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holtzauge
8 hours ago, Miners said:

Braced designs offered several disadvantages to cantilever designs.  The Entente adopter them after flawed tests the British conducted indicated that thin wings had much less drag than thick wings like seen on the Fokkers.  However, when the Germans conducted tests in a full-sized wind tunnel, they found that thick wings offered more lift for a similar amount of drag.  I assume the thicker wings also gave space to fit a cantilever spar into the wing which is why the cantilever designs were the only designs with thick wings.  Looking through combat reports, it doesn’t appear that braced designs were more prone to falling apart and in Winged Victory, Yeates seemed convinced that the Fokker Triplanes were more prone to falling apart than other types of scouts at the front.  It also seems fairly rare that control wires were shot through and instead controls were lost after the stick or something else was hit.  I remember one quote from an SE pilot who had the stick jerked out of their hand and couldn’t figure out what caused it until the mechanic cut off a strip of fabric from the wing and noticed that the aileron wire had been hit and was only connected by three strands, so I don’t think it would have supported any really violent force.  However, it’s things like these that show how poorly the current damage model represents the reality of WWI.

 

Interesting with the historical info and I totally agree on all points about the advantages of the thick cantilever wing in terms of lift/drag versus the braced and also about the two designs being about equal in terms of battle damage tolerance which was also what the 15 posts I linked to above ended up saying.

 

However, the cantilever design like on a Fokker D.VIII holds one major advantage over a braced design and that is what in engineering terms would be called alternative load paths: Similarly like in a WW2 aircraft wing, the bending and torsional loads are also carried in the wing skin and in the stringers: This means you get a very gradual reduction of the wing ability to carry load as the wing skin is blown away by cannon shells or whittled by MG-fire. The same actually goes for a WW2 spar design like the Me-109 as well in a broader sense: Sure, the spar is meant to carry the bending load but if that is damaged the bending load can be “transferred” to a certain degree around the damaged spar parts and “flow” through the wing skin and stringers bypassing the damage.

 

The Achilles-heel of the braced wing are the so-called lift wires (those from lower fuselage up to outer part of the upper wing) and associated fittings: One hit there and the wing gives. But on the other hand: What are the chances of hitting those? That’s like the dreaded “golden BB” in Vietnam: The farmer with an AK-47 spraying from the rice paddy hitting the jet pilot in the head. A one in a million shot. I think the golden BB should be modeled though: All braced FC planes should roll the dice when the wing hit box is hit BUT the chances of severing a lift wire should be like “winning” the lottery.

 

So to sum up: As a first order approximation, IMO it does not matter if the spar material is concentrated in one small area like a Camel spar or spread out into the four corners as in a Dr.1 spar, if you whittle away enough spar material the wing should fail. If we have a hit box system with the wing divided into a number of panels, the probability of hitting spar area X within that hit box should be about the same as the probability to hit one of four spar areas of area X/4 within the same hit box, ergo about the same chance of failing with the added spice of rolling the golden BB dice for the braced designs. This is of course a gross simplification but IMHO a much better first order approximation of how cantilever and braced designs should compare in-game when it comes to battle damage, i.e. roughly the same, and I find it very hard to accept that the German cantilever wings are so much stronger than the braced designs in the current FC damage model.

 

4 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Junkers J.I was using pushing rods instead of wires as they were less likely to be severed by gunfire. But whether it came from genuine experiences of losing wires or Germans overengineering their bulletproof plane, I don't know.

 

 

Didn't know that Junkers used push rod controls so that was interesting information. OTOH he was a pioneer in many areas but there was an interesting discussion about Junkers on The Aerodrome forum that I saw @ZachariasX linked to above.

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Exactly: WW1 wire type controls should not lock up but weather wane if control cable is severed. In addition, many scouts have double elevator cable systems so the risk of loosing both must be infinitesimal.

 

I have not studied the aileron circuit though: If you have push rods and lose one side you should still be able to move the other but in a cable system you may lose both sides if cable is severed on one side. I have not looked at that and it will probably wary from design to design.

 

Interestingly, as far as I gather from Mikael Carson regarding Fokker Dr.1 directional stability, if you lose one rudder cable you will most likely crash a Dr.1 because it has no inherent direction stability and must be actively steered in yaw all the time. Javier Arango said the same about the Sopwith Camel.;)

 

Looking at it in-game, the SE5a and the Camel (and probably many others) have a pull-pull cable system: the rudder cables can pull it to the left or pull it to the right. The same applies to the elevator and ailerons. Since it is cables that pull it rather than rods that push/pull it, a loss of the cable on one side should cause a partial loss of control. The pilot can still pull the rudder to the side that has the cable. By releasing tension on the rudder, the wind pushes the rudder back to neutral like a weathervane. Same thing with the elevator: cut one cable, and you can still pull in one direction and relax to allow it to weathervane back to approximately neutral.

Same thing with ailerons, except they have four control surfaces connected in series. The cable goes from the stick to the lower left, then upper left, then upper right, lower right, and back to the stick for a full pull-pull circuit. Now the response depends on where in the set you cut the cable. If you cut it between the control stick and the first aileron, all four will behave as described above: you can pull to one side and relax to let it weathervane. If you cut it between ailerons, then some can be pulled one way and the others can be pulled the other way. For example, if the bullet cuts the cable between the upper and lower left ailerons, then moving the stick left will pull the two right ailerons down and the upper left aileron up while the lower left weathervanes. Moving the stick to the right will pull the lower left aileron down while the other three weathervane.

The plane may run into issues if the pulley in the corner of the wing gets hit. If the pulley gets knocked out of position, the aileron control circuit might lose tension depending on how far out of position it is. The slack in the cable would have to be taken up before the cable would pull the cables. It is basically a dead-zone: you must move the stick a certain amount before the control actually responds. This would affect the whole control circuit. However, hitting the pulley is not enough: the pulley must be knocked loose, so a single bullet is unlikely to cause this form of control loss. Also, if the pulley gets jammed but remains in position, the cable can still slide over it. It will take a bit more effort to move the control, but it will otherwise respond as normal.

This assumes you completely sever the control cable. As Miners pointed out, a direct hit to the cable does not necessarily sever it. Many planes have redundant control cables or even controls. It looks like the Albatros has a pair of elevator cables on each side, while the SE5a and Bristol have two completely separate elevators 

I'm not sure how likely it is to jam a control surface in position. Since hitting a control cable will cause the control surface to weathervane, the only way I can think of is for a bullet to hit one of the hinges. Even then, a direct hit may not necessarily jam it in place, and it may be possible for the pilot to break it free if the control cables are still intact.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1PL-Husar-1Esk
21 minutes ago, gascan said:

I'm not sure how likely it is to jam a control surface in position. Since hitting a control cable will cause the control surface to weathervane, the only way I can think of is for a bullet to hit one of the hinges.

 

Well written @gascan!

I really doubt that bullet can bolt or weld cable to the hinge, and if so pilot using force by moving the stick can easily undo this .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

Probability of hitting a lift wire: TLDR  My take away is that while it my be correct to say that a shot fired from the ground has a one in a million chance of breaking a lift wire, this is because almost all the shots will miss the plane completely. If you are firing from behind at reasonable range, MvR style, this is orders of magnitude out.  If you can get an appreciable proportion of your shots between the wings, you have a roughly evens chance of hitting a lift wire after 100 shots between the wings. 

 

It depends on a) what you take to be the "target area" and how much a bullet must intersect with a wire, but we can start:

 

Assume that we are interested in shots roughly from the rear, counting as potential lift wire hits any that pass between the wings. Taking a Camel, with a span of 8.83m, and wings 1.36m apart (where the bracing wires cross), we get an target effective area of ~11.59m^2

 

The lift wires are 2.88m long, (measuring pixels off a picture), and there were four of them. (We are assuming that it is almost never the case that the wires are "covered" by another wire). I think they were 2mm thick? (Or was it 3mm?) working with 2mm for the moment, that is an effective area of 2.88*4*0.002 =  0.023m^2

 

0.023/11.59 = 0.00198 which looks low - indeed it is, but another way of looking at it is that the area of the lift wires is 1/504 of the area of the "target".

 

Then there is the issue of how much of the bullet, say diameter 8mm, has to intersect the wire: if we assume that the wire must be entirely in the cross sectional area of the bullet as it passes, the centre of an 8mm bullet can pass 2mm either side of the wire, and still cut it. So the effective area into which the bullet centre must pass is now 6mm wide.

 

That is an effective area of  0.069m^2, ie + 0.0060 of the "target area", or  1/168

 

So how many bullets do you have to put into the space between the wings to break a lift wire?

 

If the probability of one randomly placed shot between the wings intersecting a lift wire is 0.0060, we can work out the probability of a lift wire not being hit after n shots.

 

n           p

1           0.99

10         0.94

100       0.55

1000    0.003

 

So 100 shots would be about the median.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J2_Trupobaw

Don't you assime tah bulkets hit the wing area independently of each other (which is not a case)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

It is the best working assumption to get an idea of the order of magnitudes involved, certainly better than guessing how the hits (ie shots in the space between the wings) are not independent. Almost all of the WW2 hit analysis done by the OR scientists uses this assumption, except in cases where cumulative or compound damage is likely to be important, ie where you might need one hit to make a fuel tank leak and another to ignite the leak.

 

Essentially it is just a matter of comparing the areas the bullet must pass through to get the desired result, given the target angle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

However, the cantilever design like on a Fokker D.VIII holds one major advantage over a braced design and that is what in engineering terms would be called alternative load paths: Similarly like in a WW2 aircraft wing, the bending and torsional loads are also carried in the wing skin and in the stringers: This means you get a very gradual reduction of the wing ability to carry load as the wing skin is blown away by cannon shells or whittled by MG-fire.

This advantage would only be present on several WWI airplanes, like the Junkers J.I or Fokker DVIII, which you mentioned.  Other Fokkers seem like they might have this to some extent, but only the leading edge of the wing has plywood skin.

6 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

The Achilles-heel of the braced wing are the so-called lift wires (those from lower fuselage up to outer part of the upper wing) and associated fittings: One hit there and the wing gives.

I’m going to point out that I’m not an aeronautical engineer but I don’t think the wing would instantly fail when one wire was shot.  Instead, an increasing load would be placed on the remaining wires, making them break when the pilot pulls less G’s.  If, somehow, all of the wires were shot out, then I think the wing might automatically fail because the spar attachment points wouldn’t be able to carry the load.  The flying wires (lift wires) and landing wires (opposite to the flying wires) are both important in maneuvering and each support different loads; the flying wires support positive G’s and the landing wires support negative G’s.  The flying wires obviously needed to carry more load than the landing wires as humans can pull more positive G’s than negative G’s and I think that most maneuvers done in WWI didn’t involve many negative G’s.  But, if either type of wire is shot, the airplane will not be able to withstand as violent of maneuvers as before.

@unreasonable I think you did the calculations to find the chance of hitting the wire if the wing was two-dimensional.  To get a correct answer, the volume the bracing takes up must be found.  Also, if FC’s dispersion is correct, a good shot should have a low chance of putting a large number of bullets in between the wings if they were aiming for the pilot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

No, using the volume is not useful. To determine hits, all we have to do is compare areas, given the target angle. The way I have done it is exactly as the OR scientists do it in their published studies. 

 

As for aiming: clearly if you can aim to hit the pilot with good accuracy, your chance to hit the wires is less, since you cannot hit both with the same shot. However, we have to pick some sort of target area to limit the number of shots that count as chances to hit if we want to make statements about "the chance of hitting a lift wire". The area between the wings is a reasonable proxy given the difficulty of aiming in reality. 

 

The area of the vulnerable pilot is some small multiple of the effective vulnerable area of wires, (~4 or 5?, perhaps less if the pilot gets some protection) so in practice independent shots between the wings would hit the pilot more often than the wires. In a sequence of shots this means pilots are likely to get hit first more often than the lift wires, but my contention is that this ratio is lower than it might seem to be intuitively.     

 

Whether either a single hit to a lift wire or to the pilot would destroy the target is another matter: probably not always, but again we have to make some simplifying assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HagarTheHorrible

The chances of hitting a flying wire with a resultant profound  loss or measurable impact on combat effectivness ?  

 

What did the pilots and engineers think ?

 

Well, both the Camel and SE5a used paired flying wires (An SE5a had 16, compared to an Albatros's 4), so did everyone copy the Camel and SE ?  The Dolphin certainly didn't, the aircraft that was slated to replace them or indeed did the Snipe. 

 

So it appears that British pilots and engineers THOUGHT, or imagined, that paired wires were the way to go during the mid war period.  However, it seems that experience, with the backup safety of a second wire (to take out the guesswork as to why an aircraft might have been lost), demonstrated that a single flying wire was very, very, unlikely to be destroyed or damaged to the point of unsevicability, so designers and engineers reverted to the use of single flying wires.  I assume that German engineers having had better access to the victims of combat, given that most combat took place over their territory,  could therefore get a better understanding of why any particular aircraft was brought down.

 

Combat, in FC, is very different to the reality, which may in turn further skew probability factors.  The question is, do the developers adjust for skewed outcomes to bring things back into line with expectations or do they just let the cards fall as they may and just accept that things MIGHT be technically correct, but historically perverse ?

 

Oh, Reflected, as far as I know flying wires were often the heavier gauge, maybe 3mm while landing wires, the lighter gauge, of maybe 2mm. I also wonder what the EFFECTIVE  diameter of a 7.7 mm round is, when hitting a wire. Anything, other than the point,1-2mm, is going to be increasingly ineffective at causing severe damage, being as likely to push the wire out of the way as cut it.  Shrapnel would be of far greater threat, with sharper irregular shaped fragments combined with a potential pressure wave applied from unexpected directions.  Anyway, it's all just theory and guesswork, nobody here, or in the developers office, is a ballistics expert with access to specific test data.

Edited by HagarTheHorrible
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 10:40 PM, SeaSerpent said:

Just another DM whining thread, posing as a “question”.  Give it a rest.

Wait, why doesn't this man get suspended or banned? Absolutely off topic and combative.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaSerpent
8 hours ago, US93_Low said:

Wait, why doesn't this man get suspended or banned? Absolutely off topic and combative.

 

I guess the demise of SeaSerpent on these forums is imminent then, because that was me trying my best to be polite in the 20th DM thread.😂  But if you’re going around counseling prospective buyers to not buy because of DM, on the developers own forum, as you did in the adjacent thread, don’t worry about my standing on the forum, worry about your own.

 

Edited by SeaSerpent
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting inversion of reality. You think I’m more worthy of ban for giving a frank opinion, answering politely and on topic to a person who asks whether or not to buy the game, than someone like you who purposely derails a thread.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J2_Trupobaw
14 hours ago, US93_Low said:

Wait, why doesn't this man get suspended or banned? Absolutely off topic and combative.

Don't ask me, man 😇 ... 
.
.
.
(We almost made it to one page without anyone taking the bait, too :) . Let's go back to ?
Armchair engineer: Roland, Hall C: 9780918398512: Amazon.com: Books

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason said they intend to work on the DM “when they have time” so apparently the armchair engineers are correct in part with their assessment that the DM isn’t functioning realistically.

 

it would be best if the team would give a rough “when” timeframe for fixing DM, and a rough “what” is being fixed.

 

it would also go a long way to just have a singular STICKIED DM discussion thread for everyone to discuss and complain in, rather than locking them constantly. The discussion obviously isn’t stopping 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J2_Trupobaw
45 minutes ago, US93_Low said:

it would be best if the team would give a rough “when” timeframe for fixing DM, and a rough “what” is being fixed.


That's not how they roll. They avoid giving timelines they might have to change and promises they're not sure they can keep. They give timefrmes once they are more or less set in stone (although things like PTO still happen)

 

Quote

It would also go a long way to just have a singular STICKIED DM discussion thread for everyone to discuss and complain in, rather than locking them constantly. The discussion obviously isn’t stopping 


With all people we have convinced that being right is all about proving others wrong, and people who can't split discussing problem from discussing their frustrations, and people who just have fun watching other two groups squirm, I can't possibly see why keeping such a thread open for months and months with no news to give is a horrible idea that would spill to other threads? It took one pretty innocent comment to lure this thread off the rails, and here we are, moving away from biplane wing construction..

This discussion reminds me of my wife. Not in the good way, unfortunately, but how she is never content to just know I'm taking care of problems, she's has to see me panting and sweating or she immediately thinks I'm not giving the problem enough attention, and nags me even when I keep telling her she's just slowing me down, cause I can be counsellor or troubleshooter but not both.
(There are much better ways to emulate her 😍)

That's also not how they roll. Until they are ready to have the discussion (with some solid plans on the table),  they don't hold idle discussions because these bring no results then end badly, hopefully in that order.

 

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US213_Talbot
48 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

This discussion reminds me of my wife. Not in the good way, unfortunately, but how she is never content to just know I'm taking care of problems, she's has to see me panting and sweating or she immediately thinks I'm not giving the problem enough attention, and nags me even when I keep telling her she's just slowing me down, cause I can be counsellor or troubleshooter but not both.
(There are much better ways to emulate her 😍

 

Wait, what are we talking about here?

 

🤣

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J2_Trupobaw
7 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

Wait, what are we talking about here?

 

🤣

Making visible effort vs getting things done. What else?😁

 

30 minutes ago, US93_Low said:

Perhaps the way they roll is wrong.


Wouldn't it be nice if they didn't?
 

 

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlitzPig_EL

Annnnddd.... Back to wing spars, and wires and wood things...

 

It's actually pretty easy to explain why cantilever wing construction didn't explode in the early inter war years.  The world had just been through "The War to End All Wars".  No one at the time thought that something like this would happen again.  All the major players had bled and spent themselves dry.  Why go off on highly expensive experimental developments when what they had worked well enough?  The Central Powers had been disarmed, nothing to worry about from them anymore, right?  Time to get back to the "Great Game", but in a lower key way, and it will be fun parceling out the old Ottoman Empire, eh chaps?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Rummell

Back to topic, it sounds like the cantilever wing offered protection from small but vital wires failing, and that the load could be carried by some of the wing surface itself. On the negative side, shot away surfaces would weaken the wing, and a larger spar presents a bigger target?

 

On the bracing wires, some Entente planes had these doubled, so even if one were to be cut (very unlikely for a small rifle calibre round), there would be still be redundancy? Does this mean that any round passing through that misses a spar or wire is fairly inconsequential?

 

It sounds like the thicker wing of the Fokkers also gave more lift and therefore good climb and turn performance, with only a modest impact in terms of drag?

 

In all cases it still sounds like the pilot and engine (not to mention fuel tanks) represented a more vulnerable target than some tiny bracing wire or shared-load wing surface. I’m guessing FC treats all non-frontal angles as unarmoured?

 

Thanks Holtz for the engineering view.

 

Im keen to avoid anecdotes as they can be ambiguous. MvR and others mention shooting up planes which then went out of control and only then fell apart. That could mean a dead pilot slumped over the controls pushing beyond safe speeds rather than a snipped bracing wire. There are a couple of unambiguous reports from McCudden of sawing off surfaces with accurate and sustained hits, but also plenty of “I fired 100 rounds and he went out of control before falling to pieces”.


Unreasonable - on your fag packet maths, if you look at many of MvR’s earlier kills he admits firing many hundreds of rounds before a structure failed either from an OOO plane (dead pilot etc) or shredded surface. Maybe repeat your maths estimating the body area of a person or fuel tank…? I’d wager the probability will shoot up (no pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ST_Catchov

I'm just glad to know wives exhibit the same behaviour in the northern hemisphere as they do down under. So it's not polarity or magnetic fields. My research continues ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
5 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

<snip>


Unreasonable - on your fag packet maths, if you look at many of MvR’s earlier kills he admits firing many hundreds of rounds before a structure failed either from an OOO plane (dead pilot etc) or shredded surface. Maybe repeat your maths estimating the body area of a person or fuel tank…? I’d wager the probability will shoot up (no pun intended).

 

I already did that right there in my post, assuming the pilot area was 4-5 times that of the wires. You have some of the same difficulty determining the vulnerable pilot area as you do the area of the wires: it depends, if any, protection the pilot has. In a Camel, possibly a full fuel tank protects from some hits, possibly not. In two-seaters, the position of the observer might shield the pilot. 


So a shot passing between the Camel's wings might have 4-5 times the probability of intersecting the pilot area, compared to intersecting the lift wire area, or it might have ten or so times. But it does not have 100 times, or one thousand times. 

 

Clearly planes downed by a single hit (leaving aside incendiary/explosive rounds for the moment) are much more likely to be due to a PK than a wire hit leading to wing failure: but if you hit enough to shoot down 100 planes there are likely to be some flying wire hits.  The only reason I bothered to post is because some people here appear to believe that hits to the flying wires are almost impossible, but present no actual analysis that this is the case. If my fag packet maths is wrong, feel free to improve on it. 

 

   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1PL-Husar-1Esk

I would left probability to more discrete math and make all those wires hit boxes,  then when hit , roll a  dice for that wire to snap.  Same to spars and other important construction elements, 3 or more close enough hits would break it in significant G load and collapse the wing. Bullets just passing the linen if they not meet wood construction,  objects or wires. Fabric tearing I would make only at high speed dives adding  bullets concentration as factor. The plane shaking as it is now  I would remove entirely,  add engine shaking if severe damaged and lost of lift  if fabric is torn. Do our PC can make all that calculation with small latency?  It should as I don't see environment to demanding,  only ground AI is killing  performance,  but we don't use  much of it in ww1 scenarios any way. No big or any trench warfare sadly. In ww2 there are front lines  where AI is fighting each other , and lots objects are moving, AI planes fighting, those hog performance a lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...