PDA

View Full Version : TF4.3 flame burst in the smoke



OBT~Mikmak
Mar-30-2014, 15:40
Look at the beautiful flame burst in the smoke :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyXpeCILJMo&feature=youtu.be

speedone
Mar-30-2014, 15:48
It is beautifull indeed :)

ATAG_Naz
Mar-30-2014, 16:26
Awesome

dburne
Mar-30-2014, 16:39
Yes indeed, incredible!

ATAG_Lewis
Mar-30-2014, 18:01
I think this effect is brilliant and so realistic.....The way a part of the flame comes away from the main flame (0.40) is genius...The first time I did this to 109 I found that I felt sick that the pilot was burning and was the first time I realised what the combatants really saw which made many of them dogfight with their canaopies open for easy exit

Thanks for the vid...~S~

ChiefRedCloud
Mar-30-2014, 18:12
It is beautiful .....:thumbsup:

rob3rt
Mar-30-2014, 19:32
Awesome!

Archie
Mar-31-2014, 02:29
It is impressive, and actually quite shocking...

Plt Off JRB Meaker
Mar-31-2014, 04:27
Soooo realistic :)

ATAG_Slipstream
Mar-31-2014, 06:35
Love it! :thumbsup:

Little_D
Mar-31-2014, 07:15
Hi gents,

wait till you see how nice Hurricanes and Spitfires burn :)

regards

Little_D

Vlerkies
Mar-31-2014, 14:45
Hi gents,

wait till you see how nice Hurricanes and Spitfires burn :)

regards

Little_D
Seems the Luftwaffe are waiting a lot longer to see this effect on the RAF (certainly myself) than the Brits with 109's going into self spontaneous combustion mode all over the place :devilish:

Save yourselves the graphical trouble and just pass the instant RAF canon pk on to us instead, its more acceptable.
5 secs to eject or I am past 'well done', with the flame behind me and not in the engine compartment.

:)

http://youtu.be/n__NT0DiNBs

ATAG_Lewis
Mar-31-2014, 18:52
Seems the Luftwaffe are waiting a lot longer to see this effect on the RAF (certainly myself) than the Brits with 109's going into self spontaneous combustion mode all over the place :devilish:

Save yourselves the graphical trouble and just pass the instant RAF canon pk on to us instead, its more acceptable.
5 secs to eject or I am past 'well done', with the flame behind me and not in the engine compartment.

:)

http://youtu.be/n__NT0DiNBs

Thats just horrido...Can you jettison canopy and get out quickly enough before PK in 109?

This sim is so realistic its not nice...It feels like one of George Beurlings guest speaker speeches!!!

Little_D
Mar-31-2014, 19:00
Thats just horrido...Can you jettison canopy and get out quickly enough before PK in 109?

Hi Lewis,

sometimes if you react fast enough :) but most of the time you die.

and by the way even when you hit right into the fueltank with more than 2x 20mm incendary + 7,65mm incendary it is hard to set spitfueltank on fire it is like this:

First place: 109
second place: Hurrie ( but only the wingtanks, not the tank in the front of the pilot, same like in the Spit )
third place: Spit ( with a lot of distance to the other two)

when i watched Grubers testvideo it looks like the fueltank is under the pilot and not in front of him.

regards

Little_D

ATAG_Lewis
Mar-31-2014, 19:05
NOOOOOOOOO.....I have german friends....I like to play with them......but I do not want to see them burn.....get out...Get Out........GET OUT!!

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-31-2014, 19:34
Hmmm, where there's smoke there's fire......figuratively speaking.

Hopefully Team Fusion will take a look at this while they're under the hood. A few of my not-many 109 victims have erupted into flames after a couple of sustained bursts. My ammo load in all eight guns is not fancy: five rounds of Ball No. 7 plus one round of DeWilde. If I had a higher percentage of DeWilde with a few white incendiary possibly I would have more flamers.

Bears looking at, I believe.

ATAG_Torian
Mar-31-2014, 20:17
One of the "advantages" of the 109, pointed out by Hans Eckhard Bob (srry if I misspelled that), was that the fuel tank was behind the pilot so that if it got hit the pilot didn't burn immediately as when a Spit or Hurri fuel tank was hit which sits in front of the pilot. So I guess as most of Spit/Hurri shots at a 109 are usually from behind it is more likely u gonna hit the fuel tank than a 109 shooting a Brit fighter from behind. I have 4 guns with DeWilde ammo only and I get a lot of flamers in all aircraft types. That feature u see sometimes of a flaming component that separates from the plane and goes down is soooo cool.

Catseye
Mar-31-2014, 21:00
Hmmm, where there's smoke there's fire......figuratively speaking.

Hopefully Team Fusion will take a look at this while they're under the hood. A few of my not-many 109 victims have erupted into flames after a couple of sustained bursts. My ammo load in all eight guns is not fancy: five rounds of Ball No. 7 plus one round of DeWilde. If I had a higher percentage of DeWilde with a few white incendiary possibly I would have more flamers.

Bears looking at, I believe.

Hmmmmm,

Question is: is this just a graphic tweak or actual damage?

Makes a big difference.

I'm thinking that it is a graphical tweak at this time as from my experience, much of the actual damage is not necessarily linked to the graphic images at this time. This is an area to be thoroughly dug into for TF5.0.

Vlerkies
Apr-01-2014, 04:37
Are there any graphical representation of sorts of the hit boxes for this on the various planes, if anyone can provide that?
Just so I know where to aim. I would like to return the barbecue invite to the RAF :)

I think we could all benefit from it on both sides of the channel.

Little_D
Apr-01-2014, 04:46
Are there any graphical representation of sorts of the hit boxes for this on the various planes, if anyone can provide that?
Just so I know where to aim. I would like to return the barbecue invite to the RAF :)

I think we could all benefit from it on both sides of the channel.

Hi Vlerkies,

for the Hurriecane wingtanks put your gunsighn at convergence 2-3 mm left or right from the fuselage on the wing. if you hit there most of the time the fueltank starts to burn and as you close in, still fireing your guns, you will hit also the hitbox for wing off for the Hurriecane, so you get both efects, fueltankfire and wing off :)

for the Spit it is hard to say, but when you are coming from there high six and aim for the engin and open fire, some times you set the fueltank on fire, but in a turnclimb it is mutch harder to hit the right spot.

regards

Little_D

Talisman
Apr-01-2014, 12:56
One of the "advantages" of the 109, pointed out by Hans Eckhard Bob (srry if I misspelled that), was that the fuel tank was behind the pilot so that if it got hit the pilot didn't burn immediately as when a Spit or Hurri fuel tank was hit which sits in front of the pilot. So I guess as most of Spit/Hurri shots at a 109 are usually from behind it is more likely u gonna hit the fuel tank than a 109 shooting a Brit fighter from behind. I have 4 guns with DeWilde ammo only and I get a lot of flamers in all aircraft types. That feature u see sometimes of a flaming component that separates from the plane and goes down is soooo cool.

I have read that it is a disadvantage as the fuel tank in the 109 was L shaped and the pilot was sitting on it as well as having it to his back. This made the pilot vulnerable to the standard low six and a bit to the side attack. Hit the fuel tank and bang under the arse of the pilot!

Roblex
Apr-01-2014, 15:21
I was looking through some old directories and came across the following picture taken just over 11 years ago (22nd Jan 2003) in IL2.

Surprisingly good flame effects even that long ago!

8747

Vlerkies
Apr-03-2014, 07:55
Thanks LittleD.

I have been rather unsuccessful to date to light a fire on anything of RAF origin though.
I even changed my E1 wing guns to just phosphor AP's as a last resort, and have have the nose guns with a healthy mix of the ap rounds and phosphor.

I have bushwhacked spits and hurris, attacked from high and low, left and right but nothing.
I can kill the pilot, the engines, get em streaming white and black stuff, but have not managed to conjure up a fire just yet.
The best I got was one last night with a much bigger plume of black smoke trailing him, but he continued to fly on.
Im hitting them hard, they are going down, but in most cases its just engine damage, and rads(venting) that gets them down, and the odd pk here and there.'


I have read that it is a disadvantage as the fuel tank in the 109 was L shaped and the pilot was sitting on it as well as having it to his back. This made the pilot vulnerable to the standard low six and a bit to the side attack. Hit the fuel tank and bang under the arse of the pilot!

Although it 'may' have been more prone to damage it was less of a problem than a fuel tank in front of the pilot in the Spits case, or wings like the hurri, as the slipstream forced the heat/flames back. The Hurri would burn quickly, the Spit it would be like sitting in front of a flame thrower.

Found this quite interesting to read.

16 August 1940

Of the two main British fighter types participating in the Battle of Britain, the rugged Hawker Hurricane was notorious for its cockpit fires. The two main fuel tanks of this aircraft, positioned between the main spars in the wing roots, were completely unprotected by either armoured plate or self-sealing padding. Because of their placement, the tanks were vulnerable from behind and easily set ablaze when hit by enemy gunfire.

The Hurricane’s construction had made it dangerous in the event of the aircraft catching fire. As there was floor in the cockpit, flames from a burning wing tank could easily penetrate into it through the open space underneath the pilot’s feet. In addition, the gravity fuel tank which collected the fuel from the wing tanks before feeding it into the engine sat in the fuselage right in front of the instrument panel, without any form of protection between it and the pilot. If set on fire, it could sent a jet of flame right in the pilot’s face and body. To make matters even worse, the wooden construction and fabric covering of the rear fuselage meant that fire could spread through the rear fuselage structure quite easily.

Official RAF pilots’ instructions warned that at an altitude of 15,000 feet, cockpit temperature in a fighter suffering fuel fire rose from cool room temperature to 3,000 degrees Centigrade in the space of ten seconds. Even given the limited protection of his flying suit and gloves, the pilot had to get out immediately – or risk not being able to get out at all.

In contrast, fuel tanks of a Spitfire were located in the forward fuselage, protected from the rear and above by armoured plate and by the bulk of the engine from the front. Also, a sealed firewall separated the tank from the cockpit. In statistical terms, the Spitfire’s construction translated into much lower rate of burn injuries on Spitfires than on Hurricanes.

To be fair, the placement of fuel tank in Bf 109 was almost as bad as that in the Hurricane. In the German fighter, it was located… under the pilot’s seat. However, the Messerchmitt featured a jetissonable canopy with quick release handle, an invention which greatly simplified the bail out procedure.

On balance, the Hurricane was the most fire-prone of the three types. Many Hurricane pilots were seriously burned as a consequence of fuel fires which turned the cockpits of their aircraft into a blazing death traps.

The day of 16 August brought but two memorable examples of such ordeal.
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/08/battle-of-britain-1940-burning-hurricanes.html

So, considering the above irrefutable evidence from a Spitfire site :) I put it to you that Clod has it wrong :stunned:



First place: 109
second place: Hurrie ( but only the wingtanks, not the tank in the front of the pilot, same like in the Spit )
third place: Spit ( with a lot of distance to the other two)


regards

Little_D

1st place and second place need a little switch around, be a pal why don't you :cheers:

Little_D
Apr-03-2014, 08:05
Thanks LittleD.

I have been rather unsuccessful to date to light a fire on anything of RAF origin though.
I even changed my E1 wing guns to just phosphor AP's as a last resort, and have have the nose guns with a healthy mix of the ap rounds and phosphor.

I have bushwhacked spits and hurris, attacked from high and low, left and right but nothing.
I can kill the pilot, the engines, get em streaming white and black stuff, but have not managed to conjure up a fire just yet.
The best I got was one last night with a much bigger plume of black smoke trailing him, but he continued to fly on.
Im hitting them hard, they are going down, but in most cases its just engine damage, and rads(venting) that gets them down, and the odd pk here and there.

Hi Vlerkies,

this only works with E3/E4 with the E1 you can only set the tank on fire with a 3 - 4 second burst at the described point, no wing off. with canons a two second burst is enough to get this result + wing off :)

for the E3/E4 use the default loadout for all guns is the historical one, works perfect.

regards

Little_D

Osprey
Apr-03-2014, 08:43
One of the "advantages" of the 109, pointed out by Hans Eckhard Bob (srry if I misspelled that), was that the fuel tank was behind the pilot so that if it got hit the pilot didn't burn immediately as when a Spit or Hurri fuel tank was hit which sits in front of the pilot. So I guess as most of Spit/Hurri shots at a 109 are usually from behind it is more likely u gonna hit the fuel tank than a 109 shooting a Brit fighter from behind. I have 4 guns with DeWilde ammo only and I get a lot of flamers in all aircraft types. That feature u see sometimes of a flaming component that separates from the plane and goes down is soooo cool.


In fact the Hurricane was a terrible flaminero, the problem was not the forward reserve tank but the wing tanks. There was no bulkhead between the wing roots and the cockpit so a hit into the wing tanks would see fuel pour into the cockpit ready to be ignited, often at the same time. Cockpit temperature would go from ambient to 3000C within 10 seconds according to a stat I once heard. :(

In game a wing root fire should theoretically also engulf the pilot from the inside of the machine, has anybody experienced this?

Vlerkies
Apr-03-2014, 08:45
Sorry while you guys were replying I was editing my post. see above.

1st and 2nd place need to switch, more crispy Brits in Hurri's please :)

Vlerkies
Apr-03-2014, 09:06
Hi Vlerkies,

this only works with E3/E4 with the E1 you can only set the tank on fire with a 3 - 4 second burst at the described point, no wing off. with canons a two second burst is enough to get this result + wing off :)


He can keep his wing, but come on baby light my fire dammit :doh:
I figure if the British weapons can set my 109 alight, why would my E1's sissy pistols be any different?
Ok the DeWilde round is apparently twice a likely to start a fire as apposed to the Hun incendiary at the time, but there must be some kind of balance at play here if the aircraft like the Hurricane were more prone to burn in the first place as a result of their design.
Burning 109's everywhere, its a really bad dream:)

Lol, anyway, take a lot of the above tongue in cheek lads, not arguing, but perhaps it needs a look into for the next big patch.
Till then everytime the scramble siren sounds, I'm jumping in the base duckpond first before climbing in the cockpit.
:-)

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-03-2014, 09:17
Lol, anyway, take a lot of the above tongue in cheek lads, not arguing, but perhaps it needs a look into for the next big patch.
Till then everytime the scramble siren sounds, I'm jumping in the base duckpond first before climbing in the cockpit.
:-)

The most recent update (4.3.1) had this little note in it -> Fuel tank Armour revised on all types. However the patch was withdrawn, as you know due to problems with E4/N and the launcher crashes.

If you start doing some controlled tests now, record your results. Conduct them again after the hotfix is out and see if there is any difference.

Vlerkies
Apr-03-2014, 10:14
Hi Phil
I know what its like now, so will know if its different in 4.31 or 5 etc.
I haven't managed to set anything on fire yet so Im not expecting to get it right in between now and 4.31 say.
So if I do get it right in 4.3 then I will simply have to conclude there has been a adjustment in the right direction and smile while admiring the fireball spinning down to mother earth.

Talisman
Apr-03-2014, 12:00
As well as the Bf 109 'L' shape fuel tank under the pilot seat being more vulnerable to a the very common low six attack (exploited by the Britts and then then Russians), I believe that the less fuel in a tank then the more vulnerable it will be, as there will be more space with fumes to explode the tank. In the BoB, the Bf 109 was known to struggle for range and fuel, so having first gained altitude, joined up with bomber formations and then flown across to England, there would be a large percentage of fume filled space to assist explosion. Also, I have read that fuel in a tank can even slow down and provide some limited protection from ammunition as long as it stays in the fluid, but once a fume filled space is ignited then it's big boom time and good night to the pilot!

Not sure if fuel tank levels and associated increased risk of explosion is taken into account in CloD, but if it is then fighter pilots might want to consider starting a sortie with nothing less than 100% fuel, LOL.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Vlerkies
Apr-03-2014, 17:31
Hey Talisman
More vapour would certainly provide a more conducive environment for combustion to take place for sure, so think you are spot on there. Highly doubt thats modelled, its a hit box thing more than anything else imho.
Also one must not forget that pesky DeWilde bullet thingy the Brits used.
No expert but just from reading on the net (Brit test i think) the Dewilde round was twice as likely to start the barbecue than the std German incendiary round at the time (tested on the same type of target). They did some test where they reckoned 1 in 10 German rounds would start a fire as apposed to 1 in 5 of the DeWilde. Just what I read.

Also a bit more reading seems to suggest that the video I posted of me turning all so crispy in 5 seconds is probably not far from reality at all.
The only advantage in the 109 was the ejectable cockpit cover which made exit a lot easier, than say a Hurri.

Perhaps the history buffs can chime in here as well, but it seems both sides developed self sealing fuel tanks (to what degree or effectiveness who knows) which would mitigate the fuel loss from puncture and as such provide less fuel to be burnt.
I really do not know much about this stuff, so its just google info really, but if it goes boom it goes boom, bottom line.

What seems evident though is that the Hurricanes were far more prone for fires as a result of the placement of the tanks and the construction materials.
In the sim though the 109 seems to wear this crown though, as LittleD indicated, and its nigh impossible to do the same on a Hurricane, let alone a Spitfire (Spit much more protected tank). My observation during flying the sim as an exclusive 109 pilot seems to agree with this.
I have set a hurricane on fire once and just recalled there was a vid of it. Not sure what patch but either 4 or i before that. (footage from late last year)
Around the 1:26 mark, he was already venting then a quick burst and a bit of fire, but he died quick as well.

http://youtu.be/q_BDfcqREU8

I just think it would/should be more regular considering the history.
Anyway, loving the game, thanks TF, wish the RAF had whatever boost they think they should have, if they wanna fly 12 boost from take off to landing who cares, we will still shoot them down ;) glad the canon thing is being fixed to sort out the RAF pk's and would be happy to see the 4N disappear from the sim, just to tone down the negative noise. The game doesn't need it.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-03-2014, 20:51
Couple comments:

-None of the 109E's had self sealing tanks at the time of the battle, and none of the 109E's AFAIK came from the factory with the tanks. Retroactively, it is possible the E model was fitted with them in 1941-42. The F model was the first 109 to have self sealing tanks, but the first versions did not. As protection, 109E's had a laminated Aluminum 'armour' sheet behind the fuel tank to deflect rounds.

-Spit I and Hurri DH5-20 did not have self sealing tanks and had no protection over the tanks

-Early Spit IA and Hurri Rotol did not have self sealing tanks but did have thin aluminum sheet 'armour' fitted over the tanks. Beginning in mid September, self Sealing tanks were retro-actively fitted. The schedule for this work is not clear, the weight of these early self sealing tanks is not clear, and at the moment we don't have a 'late' versions of these aircraft with self sealing tanks in the game.

-Spitfire IIA's came from the factory with self sealing tanks.

-Bf110's had self sealing tanks, except the 110C-2.

-Most bomber types had self sealing tanks

-Most of the fuel tank 'armour' was only useful for deflecting rounds which struck at an angle of less than 90 degrees. It was not as heavy as pilot armour which was made from hardened steel.

We have tried to model the above.

Wulf
Apr-03-2014, 21:31
Self-sealing tanks may provide a measure of protection against rifle caliber weapons, in some instances, but they'd be all but useless against cannon - particularly HE rounds.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-04-2014, 01:15
Self-sealing tanks may provide a measure of protection against rifle caliber weapons, in some instances, but they'd be all but useless against cannon - particularly HE rounds.

Depends on the type of round. A 20mm AP round would probably be sealable.

If an HE round exploded within the tank, then nothing would stop the fuel from igniting.

However, HE rounds of the 1940 era were designed to explode immediately after the first surface they penetrated, and since fuel tanks were a second layer, inside the aircraft's outer skin, the chances are a round would go off prior to penetrating the tank.

In 1941/42, the fusing on the German 20mm rounds was altered to allow a longer delay before the round exploded.

Vlerkies
Apr-04-2014, 02:40
Thanks for your input and the education Buzzsaw, much appreciated.
:salute:

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-04-2014, 03:59
To qualify my above answer:

Even if a 20mm HE round exploded outside the fuel tank, there would be a good chance shrapnel would penetrate the tank. If it wasn't self sealing, then there would be leaks and with all the hot debris and shell fragments, a good chance of fire.

And of course, multiple 20mm rounds hitting in the same area could blow off the skin and later rounds would then hit the tank directly. The same applies to small caliber rounds to a lesser extent.

Wulf
Apr-04-2014, 04:54
If you guys really choose to believe that a self-sealing fuel tank, manufactured circa 1940, could effectively close a rupture caused by either a direct hit or splinter damage from a 20 mm cannon shell then, all that is left for me to do is slowly back away making no sudden movements.



8790

Osprey
Apr-04-2014, 05:17
Whilst I take your point Wulf, I don't think that an unqualified picture of a wrecked rear gun even remotely qualifies as evidence. How do you know what round hit that area? It could've been an 88 for all you know. It worries me that each time you post it is weighted significantly toward the axis, pretty much every time. When I see that in somebody I face palm because it is a waste of ww2 airwar passion. You can't have an agenda if you want to have a sim mate.

Regarding De Wilde, 2 points I'd like to make and probably egg-sucking to TF but welcome to people who may not know.
1. De Wilde was regarded as a special ammo by British pilots, that they felt it was way more effective than other incendiary. The Air Ministry disputed this and went as far as to demonstrate that it was not with live firing exercises of different round types. The conclusion was that it was not any more effective at starting fires than the existing incendiary rounds however it did give off a clear flash on impact and it was this which was reassuring to the pilots and createed the demand. The AM gave in, the pilots demanded it anyway and production increased.
2. It was in short supply for the BOB. If you are using more than 1 gun of De Wilde then you are gaming the game because there wasn't enough of it to give out. The default loadout of the game for the RAF is actually very realistic although I understand the desire to remove some of that tracer in the outer guns.

Credit to the sim that RAF pilots are pining over De Wilde just like they did in 1940 :)

So to TF, the normal incendiary was as good as the De Wilde, only without, or with less visible, impact flash. Though really I should make the effort to try and dig out the article, or scan it from whichever book it was in. Or do you already have this data?

thanks
~S~

Robo.
Apr-04-2014, 05:25
I have a bigger version of the above photograph:

click here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10668862/BF517.jpg)

That's the later version of 20mm though (MG151/20), the event happened in 1943. Short Stirling attacked by a Luftwaffe night fighter over Germany. The BoB battle damage to RAF planes I've seen on the photographs looks a bit different, but obviously that's just the lucky ones that made it back home with relatively minor damage.

Vlerkies
Apr-04-2014, 06:26
That sends shivers down my spine Robo :stunned:

Back to the tanks.

From a few books
Decisive Duel
http://i.imgur.com/dj5Wpd9.jpg

The BoB: Myth and Reality

http://i.imgur.com/2Z0lYvY.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/buRr0U3.jpg

Wulf
Apr-04-2014, 06:54
Whilst I take your point Wulf, I don't think that an unqualified picture of a wrecked rear gun even remotely qualifies as evidence. How do you know what round hit that area? It could've been an 88 for all you know. It worries me that each time you post it is weighted significantly toward the axis, pretty much every time. When I see that in somebody I face palm because it is a waste of ww2 airwar passion. You can't have an agenda if you want to have a sim mate.

Regarding De Wilde, 2 points I'd like to make and probably egg-sucking to TF but welcome to people who may not know.
1. De Wilde was regarded as a special ammo by British pilots, that they felt it was way more effective than other incendiary. The Air Ministry disputed this and went as far as to demonstrate that it was not with live firing exercises of different round types. The conclusion was that it was not any more effective at starting fires than the existing incendiary rounds however it did give off a clear flash on impact and it was this which was reassuring to the pilots and createed the demand. The AM gave in, the pilots demanded it anyway and production increased.
2. It was in short supply for the BOB. If you are using more than 1 gun of De Wilde then you are gaming the game because there wasn't enough of it to give out. The default loadout of the game for the RAF is actually very realistic although I understand the desire to remove some of that tracer in the outer guns.

Credit to the sim that RAF pilots are pining over De Wilde just like they did in 1940 :)

So to TF, the normal incendiary was as good as the De Wilde, only without, or with less visible, impact flash. Though really I should make the effort to try and dig out the article, or scan it from whichever book it was in. Or do you already have this data?

thanks
~S~




The photograph in question is freely available on the web and well documented.

I've noted your comments about my objectivity. In that regard you may be familiar with the expression, 'pot calling kettle black'? If you don't understand what it means I'd suggest you look it up.

Wulf
Apr-04-2014, 07:12
I have a bigger version of the above photograph:

click here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10668862/BF517.jpg)

That's the later version of 20mm though (MG151/20), the event happened in 1943. Short Stirling attacked by a Luftwaffe night fighter over Germany. The BoB battle damage to RAF planes I've seen on the photographs looks a bit different, but obviously that's just the lucky ones that made it back home with relatively minor damage.


The damage may have been caused by MG 151/20s or it may have been caused by MGFFs. Both types of cannon were used in Luftwaffe night fighters right up until the end of the War. The obliquely pointing schrage musik installations often incorporated the MGFF because the drum feed was much less complicated to mount in the rear cockpit of a night fighter than a belt fed weapon like the MG 151. The Mauser was certainly a better gun but only because the belt feed allowed for greater ammo storage and improved functionality. The Mauser also shot a bit flatter than the MGFF which made it easier to hit things but the power of the 20 mm projectile was for all intents and purposes the same.

Robo.
Apr-04-2014, 07:16
The photograph in question is freely available on the web and well documented.

It is quite well documented indeed, although we don't even know what aircraft type attacked this particular bomber.

Also, it objectively doesn't apply to Battle of Britain era cannons or to fuel tank damage.

Vlerkies, yes these are terrible pictures, I always think about that poem written by some USAAF gunner. Thanks for the scans btw.

Robo.
Apr-04-2014, 07:31
The damage may have been caused by MG 151/20s or it may have been caused by MGFFs. Both types of cannon were used in Luftwaffe night fighters right up until the end of the War. The obliquely pointing schrage musik installations often incorporated the MGFF because the drum feed was much less complicated to mount in the rear cockpit of a night fighter than a belt fed weapon like the MG 151. The Mauser was certainly a better gun but only because the belt feed allowed for greater ammo storage and improved functionality. The Mauser also shot a bit flatter than the MGFF which made it easier to hit things but the power of the 20 mm projectile was for all intents and purposes the same.

Sorry, typing our replies in the same time :) You're absolutely right of course - my point was that a picture of a bomber shot up by a LW night fighter in 1943 is not the best proof for a 1940 sim. I honestly don't know what exactly caused that damage, my personal bet would be on Bf 110, but it might as well been a Ju-88 or Fw 190. Shraege Musik would cause the damage from below, this looks like a typical 6 o'clock attack to me.

Also, the 20mm projectiles for both weapons were actually slightly different in their effect. The Mauser had an different, specifically improved fuse for one causing more damage deeper in the target's internal structure rather than on the surface.

Wulf
Apr-04-2014, 07:31
It is quite well documented indeed, although we don't even know what aircraft type attacked this particular bomber.

Also, it objectively doesn't apply to Battle of Britain era cannons or to fuel tank damage.

Vlerkies, yes these are terrible pictures, I always think about that poem written by some USAAF gunner. Thanks for the scans btw.


Robo, yes actually it does apply to BoB era cannon. I think you've missed my last post.

Wulf
Apr-04-2014, 07:47
Sorry, typing our replies in the same time :) You're absolutely right of course - my point was that a picture of a bomber shot up by a LW night fighter in 1943 is not the best proof for a 1940 sim. I honestly don't know what exactly caused that damage, my personal bet would be on Bf 110, but it might as well been a Ju-88 or Fw 190. Shraege Musik would cause the damage from below, this looks like a typical 6 o'clock attack to me.

Also, the 20mm projectiles for both weapons were actually slightly different in their effect. The Mauser had an different, specifically improved fuse for one causing more damage deeper in the target's internal structure rather than on the surface.


Yes, agreed, improvements were going on all the time to these munitions, that's true for both the 20mmx80 and the 20mmx 82. However, the point I'm trying to make is that the rupture caused by a 20 mm HE round (and in many cases by other types of 20 mm projectiles) will be so great that the S/S properties of these tanks simply wouldn't be able to cope. It really doesn't matter what type of 20 mm is involved. The destruction is going to be beyond the capabilities of the S/S system.

Vlerkies
Apr-04-2014, 08:14
Yes, agreed, improvements were going on all the time to these munitions, that's true for both the 20mmx80 and the 20mmx 82. However, the point I'm trying to make is that the rupture caused by a 20 mm HE round (and in many cases by other types of 20 mm projectiles) will be so great that the S/S properties of these tanks simply wouldn't be able to cope. It really doesn't matter what type of 20 mm is involved. The destruction is going to be beyond the capabilities of the S/S system.
That's a pretty safe assertion to make Wulf no arguments there from me.
The SS tank tech seemed to be developed for 2 main reasons, help prevent fires on crash landing and then obviously damage in flight/combat, preventing fuel leaking out leaving you high and dry or worse, leaked fuel igniting.
The US claimed that their later developments on this SS tanks tech could withstand std mg fire, 0.50cal and 'sometimes' also 20mm canon fire.
This was however later in the Pacific theater.

Anyway, its all largely moot as Buzz has stated the Spits, Hurri's and 109's are not fitted with them in the game. So the debate is really more around which of the 3 was more vulnerable to fire than the others?
As it stands now its the 109 way out front, then the Hurri and distantly third the Spit.
Anecdotal evidence suggests this is the wrong order is my contention.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-04-2014, 08:20
Anyway, its all largely moot as Buzz has stated the Spits, Hurri's and 109's are not fitted with them in the game. So the debate is really more around which of the 3 was more vulnerable to fire than the others?
As it stands now its the 109 way out front, then the Hurri and distantly third the Spit.
Anecdotal evidence suggests this is the wrong order is my contention.

I agree with you. Burns to hands and face were infamously common in the RAF especially during BoB.

The best way to test this is to expose all aircraft to the SAME ammunition. The 109 pilots are observing fires, they are being shot at by .303, not cannon. So we need to test 109s, Spitfires and Hurricanes being shot at by .303.

One cannot use 109 shooting at a spit to test against spit shooting at a 109. The same aircraft/ loadout must be used against each type.

This is what I've been doing over the past few days. I'm becoming quite convinced that the 109 is more likely to go into fireball than the spitfire, even under very similar conditions (being shot at from dead-6 with .303 from 200m to ~75m and everything in between).

Why is this happening? I don't know. Maybe the fuel-tank, being in front of the spitfire cockpit is somehow being unrealistically protected by something.......?
It warrants investigation, that's for sure.

Vlerkies
Apr-04-2014, 08:40
The best way to test this is to expose all aircraft to the SAME ammunition. The 109 pilots are observing fires, they are being shot at by .303, not cannon. So we need to test 109s, Spitfires and Hurricanes being shot at by .303.

.
Hi Phil,
I fly the E1 99% of the time I am online, practically only that plane, so no canon rounds at all from me.
My loadout was always Stalkern Hart-Phosphor-Tracer AP for all 4 guns. Last few nights I have changed the wings guns to all Phosphor in an attempt to up the anti, still no barbecues. I am not testing on a test bed as such, this is just online play.

Tell you what though, next time I see QJ-P over the channel, straight and level please pal, none of that twisty turny stuff you guys do, it just makes me dizzy :)
:salute:

Robo.
Apr-04-2014, 08:41
Yes, agreed, improvements were going on all the time to these munitions, that's true for both the 20mmx80 and the 20mmx 82. However, the point I'm trying to make is that the rupture caused by a 20 mm HE round (and in many cases by other types of 20 mm projectiles) will be so great that the S/S properties of these tanks simply wouldn't be able to cope. It really doesn't matter what type of 20 mm is involved. The destruction is going to be beyond the capabilities of the S/S system.

Oh sorry I thought there was never any doubt about that. Buzzsaw said it pretty clearly and there is nothing one can disagree with. My point was purely the picture used as 'evidence' was not the best choice. IMHO of course and you're right, as we agree on the essentials, so it's perhaps not very important.

Good points Philstyle - I think part of the problem is position of the fuel tank and part of it might be a DM issue.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-04-2014, 08:49
Hi Phil,
I fly the E1 99% of the time I am online, practically only that plane, so no canon rounds at all from me.
My loadout was always Stalkern Hart-Phosphor-Tracer AP for all 4 guns. Last few nights I have changed the wings guns to all Phosphor in an attempt to up the anti, still no barbecues. I am not testing on a test bed as such, this is just online play.:

If you're using the E1, then test against 109s as well as spits. It's not good to attack Spits with a 109 and leave it at that, comparing against someone elses attacks against a 109 with a spit and expect similar results.

You can't do this on an online server either. You have to build a single player mission and do rinse-and-repeats again and again, recording the results.
It's boring......and boringer.


Tell you what though, next time I see QJ-P over the channel, straight and level please pal, none of that twisty turny stuff you guys do, it just makes me dizzy :)
:salute:

I'll usually only fly S&L if I'm above you, with an energy advantage. Then you're most welcome to nose up and bleed your energy into my gunsight. Incidentally, I'm one of the few RAF Boom-n-Zoom types ;)

Vlerkies
Apr-04-2014, 09:16
I'll usually only fly S&L if I'm above you, with an energy advantage. Then you're most welcome to nose up and bleed your energy into my gunsight. Incidentally, I'm one of the few RAF Boom-n-Zoom types ;)
Hehe, good for you!
Call me mad and maybe I am imagining it, but since 4.3 I have the impression that the fights moved higher, this is a good thing for everyone.

Talisman
Apr-04-2014, 12:00
It's a bit like 'swings and roundabouts' I suppose. I think the Spitfire tank is less likely to get catastrophic damage in fighter vs fighter action, due to its profile and location, especially from the very common low six firing position, and the slower rate of fire of LW ammunition. However, if the tank is hit and set on fire, then the fire is in front of the pilot making him very vulnerable and his time is very limited. If the tank damage causes explosion, then I assume it is instant death. Pilot vulnerability to fire due to aircraft accident and/or post combat crash landing was probably higher for the Spitfire pilot because the tank was in front of him.

The Bf 109 tank is more likely to take catastrophic damage in fighter vs fighter action due to hits from an enemy on the very common enemy attack position from the low six and a little to the side, especially given the very high rate of fire (160 rounds per second I believe) from Spits and Hurricanes. However, if the tank is set on fire then at least the fire is behind the pilot giving him more time than the Spit or Hurricane pilot. If the tank damage causes explosion, then I assume it is instant death as with the Spitfire.

Not much of a choice to my mind. Sit on the fuel tank or have it forward of you. Another reminder of just how brave pilots from both sides were in real life.

Happy landings,

Talisman

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-08-2014, 04:56
Couple comments:

-None of the 109E's had self sealing tanks at the time of the battle, and none of the 109E's AFAIK came from the factory with the tanks. Retroactively, it is possible the E model was fitted with them in 1941-42. The F model was the first 109 to have self sealing tanks, but the first versions did not. As protection, 109E's had a laminated Aluminum 'armour' sheet behind the fuel tank to deflect rounds.

The 109E had a 8 mm steel armored bulkhead behind the pilot and the tank (in the fuselage), which could stop AP rounds dead and of course, incendiary rounds. Angle shots had a chance to bypass it though. The laminated aluminum armor only came with the 109F (which in addition) also had a steel back plate for the pilot.

I am suspecting that the armored bulkhead (introduced some time around December 1939, but definitely used by BoB period, as many crashed aircraft reports note its presence) is not modelled for the 109E at all. Hence the PKs and tank fires...


-Early Spit IA and Hurri Rotol did not have self sealing tanks but did have thin aluminum sheet 'armour' fitted over the tanks. Beginning in mid September, self Sealing tanks were retro-actively fitted. The schedule for this work is not clear, the weight of these early self sealing tanks is not clear, and at the moment we don't have a 'late' versions of these aircraft with self sealing tanks in the game.

-Spitfire IIA's came from the factory with self sealing tanks.

IIRC only on of the two tanks in the Spitfire was self sealing, for the lack of space.

Talisman
Apr-08-2014, 05:48
The 109E had a 8 mm steel armored bulkhead behind the pilot and the tank (in the fuselage), which could stop AP rounds dead and of course, incendiary rounds. Angle shots had a chance to bypass it though. The laminated aluminum armor only came with the 109F (which in addition) also had a steel back plate for the pilot.

I am suspecting that the armored bulkhead (introduced some time around December 1939, but definitely used by BoB period, as many crashed aircraft reports note its presence) is not modelled for the 109E at all. Hence the PKs and tank fires...



IIRC only on of the two tanks in the Spitfire was self sealing, for the lack of space.

Did the steel armour that you mention above extend to the lower part of the tank under the pilot seat Kurfurst?

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-08-2014, 07:57
Nope, its just large bulkhead in the fuselage, covering the entire fuselage cross section. The lower part of tank is vulnerable to delfection shots, as is the pilot. Which is probably the reason why the system was later changed (on the 109F) to an L-shaped steel back plate directly behind the pilot's seat, plus a bit later a laminated aluminium fuselage bulkhead (akin to the 109E's) for additional protection for the fuel tank.

vranac
Apr-08-2014, 08:46
Kurfurst, can you please provide some technical drawing that shows that bulkhead?

Emile manual is full of drawings and there isn't any bulkhead there and if it was covering the entire fuselage cross section it would interfere with some equipment.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/20/2w/33zlvvGS/109e-1.jpg
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3a/vy/KlEEBxs/109e-2.jpg
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3P/zZ/1sHbBaNe/109e-3.jpg

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-08-2014, 09:47
Will look up, I cannot see many in the manuals, probably because the original manuals pre-dated the armored bulkheads service introduction, so these probably describe in separate addenda.

Of course I do not have all of the manuals... some secondary sources depict the bulkheads position though, its roughly in the place you draw the oval circle. Cuttings were provided for equipment and cables etc.

The subject was raised during the development of Il-2:BOB, here is some British inspection of crashed aircraft I have found back then.

-------

A.I.2.(g) Report No. 4/53 ñ 1940

Me 109. Crashed 30.09.40 at 17.00 hours, at Queens Anne's Gate, Windsor Great Park. Markings: 9 painted on yellow engine cowling. Spinner white with black circle on tip. Old markings had been painted out, viz. PH + LV. Airframe built by Arado, 29.06.40,. No. 109.4851. Engine DB601. Following fighter action aircraft forced landed and turned over. There are a number of bullet strikes from astern.

Armament: x 2 MG 17 in wings and x 2 under engine cowling. Armour: Standard cross bulkhead and head protection for the pilot.


A.I.2.(g) Report No. 4/54 ñ 1940

Me 109. Crashed on 30.09.40 at 16.50 hours at Sydling St. Nicholas, near Cerne Abbas. Map ref:U0821.
Markings not decipherable. Engine DB601. Following fighter action aircraft dived into the ground and burnt out. Pilot baled out, but was killed owing to parachute failure. Armament: x 2 MG 17 in wings and two under engine cowling traced. Armour: Standard cross bulkhead was found only.


AIR 22/266

Me 109. Crashed on 31.08.40 at Jubilee Farm, Ulcombe. Identification markings 10 + I, black Gothic S on white shield. Fuselage built by ERLA Werke Nr. 62914. Cause of crash, fighter action, condition fair. Aircraft made good landing, wheels up. Armament: 20 mm shell guns in wings and x 2 MG 17 machine guns under engine cowling.
Armour usual bulkhead, pilots head protected by shield. Crew 1, prisoner. Camouflaged green upper surfaces, light blue underneath. In good condition, suitable for exhibition purposes.
The DB601 engine is reported to have had the number 11366/211002a.


Type: Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4 Werke/Nr. 1325

A.I 1(g) Report No. 3/67 states:

Crashed on 30.09.40 at Langney, near Eastbourne. Map ref: R.0820. Markings 13 + (figures in yellow). Orange nose, rudder and fin. Engine DB601A, No.63509, made by Daimler Benz at Genshagen, Toltow.
Armament: 2 x 20mm cannons and 2 MG 17. Armour: normal cross bulkhead, and panel behind pilots head. Following fighter action, aircraft forced landed. A few .303 strikes in cooling system and engine. Pilot prisoner.


A.I.2.(g) Report 1940

Me 109. Forced landed at Love's Farm, Marden, Kent on 05.09.40. Markings < + - black, outlines in white. Crest: Shield U-shaped, outlined in red, divided into 8 segments coloured black and white. Wing tip and rudder painted white, camouflage all blue, fuselage all blue. Spinner divided into alternate black and white sectors. Fitted with Bd601A engine made by Mercedes Benz Erke Nr.10598. Aircraft forced landed following fighter action. Condition reported to be very good. Standard armament x 2 20 mm cannon and x 2 MG 17 machine guns. No head armour.. Starboard wing shows many .303 strikes.

Macro
Apr-08-2014, 10:19
Great reading this is guys. Need spec drawing that shows where it was and that it was actually fitted to the variants used during bob.

I always thought all the planes would have quickly had these fitted if it were possible in the design due to the amount of burnt pilots.

Osprey
Apr-08-2014, 10:33
So are we talking about a field mod/factory pack here or is this a part of the build from factories from a set date. One of those 109's left the factory in June, but was an E-1 and had a bulkhead, but when was that fitted?

Ultimately the best solution is diversity of planeset where you may choose armour etc but you trade it off against weight and agility.

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-08-2014, 11:22
So are we talking about a field mod/factory pack here or is this a part of the build from factories from a set date. One of those 109's left the factory in June, but was an E-1 and had a bulkhead, but when was that fitted?

Ultimately the best solution is diversity of planeset where you may choose armour etc but you trade it off against weight and agility.

Nope. All crashed aircraft reports from the BoB period I have seen note the presence of the armored bulkhead. therefore it was standard fitting of 109E in the Battle.

Look at the crash reports - "standard", "normal", "usual" armored bulkhead is mentioned. Its mentioned both for E-1 and E-3/E-4. Secondary sources state that the E-4 in the spring of 1940 was the first one to have factory fitted, but already the December 1939 manual notes that the "weight of armor plates is not shown in the weight listings". So it was either present by that time, or about to be introduced, hence the disclaimer.

The E-3 captured by the French in the automn of 1939 (and later tested in Britain) did not have any armor yet, so early production obviously did not sport one. Here keep in mind that both E-1 and E-3 started production parallel from the end of 1938.

There no doubt that by the BoB, or perhaps by the BoF the bulkhead was standard fitting. The armored headrest was not, its only on some pictures you can see that, sometimes along with a mirror and/or armored windshield.

Merrick's German cocpits book has some schemes about its positioning, perhaps coming from a manual unknown to me. I will try to post it later today.

Vlerkies
Apr-08-2014, 12:54
The additional head armour towards the top of the cockpit seemed to be rolled out a lot slower or later, but the plate by all accounts was fitted before BoB.

Just cruising the net some really nice accounts out there, this one from Galland.
It was only in 1941 that Galland, after being injured and grounded was going to be test flighting (non combat) some aircraft that this higher 'additional' protection was fitted to his aircraft.
He still bitched about it to his fitter, a certain Mr Meyer cause Galland hit his noggin on it and was rather upset about it all lol.
It was supposed to be a test flight but they ended up engaging a bomber formation and he was hit again, this time by a 20mm canon shell behind the head on the new armour. He survived, and saying after the fact that Herr Meyer was granted extended leave and 100 marks for his trouble fitting the armour that that very morning to the aces plane :)

And totally unrelated, but why not it involves Galland and Bader.

On 9 August 1941, RAF ace Douglas Bader bailed out over St Omer, France. Bader was well known to the Luftwaffe and at the time of his capture had been credited with 22 aerial victories. Galland himself claimed two Spitfires on that date. Galland and JG 26 entertained Bader over the next few days.

Owing to the significant stature of the prisoner, Galland permitted Bader, under escort, to sit in the cockpit of a Bf 109. Apparently, despite losing one of his tin legs in the aircraft, Bader, in a semi-serious way, asked if they wouldn't mind if he took it on a test flight around the airfield. Galland replied that he feared Douglas would attempt to escape and they would have to give chase and shoot at each other again, and declined the request
Would have loved to be a fly on the wall during that conversation.
:)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-08-2014, 14:00
According to all accounts, Bader was an extremely charming fellow, who could make friends with anyone.

Galland knew he would have taken off never to return if he was given a chance, but it must have been hard to resist Bader's grin and twinkle in the eye. :salute:

Vlerkies
Apr-08-2014, 14:37
According to all accounts, Bader was an extremely charming fellow, who could make friends with anyone.

Galland knew he would have taken off never to return if he was given a chance, but it must have been hard to resist Bader's grin and twinkle in the eye. :salute:

Yeah man, can just picture a Schwarm of 109's scrambled in hot pursuit chasing this crazy English chap across the channel cursing the speed of his aircraft hehe:)
You can almost feel the mutual respect given though in that conversation, it's palpable!
Whether or not they hated each others guts or cause or whatever, it makes no difference.
Both top pilots with respect, dignity and honor.

:salute:

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-09-2014, 14:39
The Bf 109E armor system is depicted (by mere coincidence it seems) in the Bf 109E-7/Z (the GM-1 variant) manual. I am sharing this for reference for the modding team.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/109E-7Zmanual_zps657b11bd.png (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/109_stuff/109E-7Zmanual_zps657b11bd.png.html)

via Deutsche Flugzeug-Cockpits 1935-1945 by Kenneth A. Merrick.

Wulf
Apr-09-2014, 20:25
I agree with Kling.

Team Fusion are made up of community members who experienced the frustration and difficulties as most early adopters did with CloD. Having been a harsh critic of Luthier/Ilya on the Banana forums due to his lack of communication and also apparent disregard of some very constructive rather than destructive criticism, I shared the frustration of the community as months went by with no noticeable progress to fix the bugs.

The final nail and source of antagonism to me was the announcement of Battle over Stalingrad (their next expansion before 777 took it) which they said would mean no more fixes for CloD. Now, if you look at the condition CloD was left in after the final official patch, it was very obvious there was so much more to do and yet they wanted the community to buy the next expansion for a flawed and unfinished game?

So as a member of the community who went on the roller coaster ride of development updates (or lack of) it was easy to see how important communication is with the community. The thing is, even if there really is nothing to say, it only takes a few minutes to post an update where you can answer a few community questions. Seriously, no-one is 'that' busy! It seems sadly that lessons haven't been learned and this is now happening with DCS: WW2 Europe where, as I said, it really would only take a few minutes to just jump on the forums or Kickstarter page and just interact a little with your client base? Anyway, I detract from the purpose of the thread.

Team Fusion are 'fortunate' not to be on a payroll or under time constraints, this is a luxury studios don't have. Looking at hat the team have accomplished in such a short period of time in relation to the final Steam patch, it is quite incredible what a group of hobbiests have managed to achieve.

As members of the community we 'suffer' the same issues you do but from our side we have the possibility to at-least look at ways to fix them, thereby enhancing and embracing the community even more. If you notice on the forums, those with Purple lettering on the user name are members of Team Fusion. What makes us a little different is that we all like getting involved and chatting with other enthusiasts and while we can't divulge what plans we have, we do obviously listen and take onboard the community wishes and in many threads you'll see TF members having discussions. This is because we have the same hopes and aspirations for Cliffs of Dover as you do, it's just that we can possibly make that difference. We are as much of the community as you are. Flight Sims are our enjoyment and to that end, that is why we want to make Cliffs of Dover the Sim Ilya and Oleg had hoped for during it's long creation.

So in finishing I think the reason Cliffs of Dover, Team Fusion and the forum viewers here are widely regarded as a great community is because;

There is a tolerance and understanding that a group of aviation Sim enthusiasts, in there own time and out of their own passion for the Sim, have got involved to fix what was left unfinished.

Those who are fixing it were and are part of the community left frustrated by the final version and it's shortcomings.

There is a true interaction between Team Fusion and the community to try and bring even more features to the Sim, which are all free and will expand the playability.

Not just Team Fusion but many forum members are willing to add their experience and knowledge to help others get the most from the Sim on even 'antique' PC's :)



Basically, Team Fusion is made up of members of the Community and I think it's that passion shared and also experienced by members of Team Fusion and the Community which drives this forward with such a passion. Allied to that there is also a tolerance because the community members realise that without TF CloD would have stagnated and really only the most dedicated of fans would have stuck with it.

Just think (off the top of my head) community members have fixed FM's, DM's, particle effects, sound effects, added new variants of aircraft, vastly improved FPS, are working on new models and a new Theatre......and all this as a hobby.


I think to summarise, everyone here knows Cliffs of Dover is fundamentally an outstanding Sim, those who are here want to help others experience this are willing to share their time and effort to make that happen and all everyone wants is the most authentic WW2 combat experience possible.

So long live TF and the Community that are coming along for the ride and expanding as this Sim continues to grow :)

Cheers, MP

Firstly, I must just say that I very much doubt whether any of us would still be playing CloD if were not for the work put in by the members of TF - I certainly wouldn't be. Essentially they took a work in progress (or shambles, depending on your viewpoint) and turned it into one of the best little prop sims money can buy, if not the best. When this process first began I'd expected that maybe we'd end up with a few minor mods around the periphery of the game but what we have been given to date is nothing short of mind-blowing. Furthermore, the trust that was accorded the Team by the wider community was rewarded by clear and regular communication. We always had the impression that we were well and truly inside the loop and when issues arose we were told exactly what we could and could not expect and why; at least until recently.

I really didn't want to introduce a discordant note into this thread but I think it would be dishonest in the circumstances if the recently resurrected issue concerning 'asbestos Spitfires' wasn't mentioned. I think it's important because, in my view, it suggests a certain complacency or perhaps even arrogance that has disrupted the otherwise excellent communications that have existed between the Team and the wider community. My concern is that if this issue remains unresolved and seemingly taboo, like a great elephant stuck in the middle of the room, there is a danger that the bonds between the Team and some elements of the wider community may begin to unravel.

It doesn't concern me so much that the issue of the fire-proof Spitfires hasn't been fixed. I accept that problems with the game (I think we call them 'legacy issues' these days) must be prioritized and done in a logical, ordered way, if progress is to be achieved. And, whether Spitfires burn or not doesn't change the fact that they can still be shot down. However, what worries me is the cloak of silence that has been drawn around the issue. First we were told there wasn't a problem at all (the 'are you on drugs' defence), then we were told that they did burn, but we couldn't see the flames, (the Emperor's New Clothes defence) and then, when clear video evidence of the problem was recently made available, the prominent defenders of the status quo simply appeared to close ranks and fall silent about the issue. (the War of Attrition defence) So, just what on earth are we supposed to make of this? You don't need a folio of charts and graphs to know that something is clearly wrong here. The Spitfire, unlike other aircraft in the sim, doesn't appear to catch fire. A year ago I'd have simply said this is just another issue which will no doubt be fixed over time, but now I'm not so sure. The issue is so glaringly obvious and yet I don't think I've ever seen it formally acknowledged. And when the issue has been raised, instead of just agreeing that there appears to be a problem and assigning a work number, we are met with a wall of what must now appear to the casual observer as something approaching orchestrated denial. Is there some sort of agenda here because I'm starting to run out of plausible explanations to the contrary? Would anyone on TF be prepared to tell us what's going on? We know from the PK issue that things can happen very quickly when there's a will to do something but in this case not so much it would seem. Anyway, some sort of explanation would not only be appreciated, it would also help to dispel any lingering uncertainties.

Kling
Apr-09-2014, 23:25
Firstly, I must just say that I very much doubt whether any of us would still be playing CloD if were not for the work put in by the members of TF - I certainly wouldn't be. Essentially they took a work in progress (or shambles, depending on your viewpoint) and turned it into one of the best little prop sims money can buy, if not the best. When this process first began I'd expected that maybe we'd end up with a few minor mods around the periphery of the game but what we have been given to date is nothing short of mind-blowing. Furthermore, the trust that was accorded the Team by the wider community was rewarded by clear and regular communication. We always had the impression that we were well and truly inside the loop and when issues arose we were told exactly what we could and could not expect and why; at least until recently.

I really didn't want to introduce a discordant note into this thread but I think it would be dishonest in the circumstances if the recently resurrected issue concerning 'asbestos Spitfires' wasn't mentioned. I think it's important because, in my view, it suggests a certain complacency or perhaps even arrogance that has disrupted the otherwise excellent communications that have existed between the Team and the wider community. My concern is that if this issue remains unresolved and seemingly taboo, like a great elephant stuck in the middle of the room, there is a danger that the bonds between the Team and some elements of the wider community may begin to unravel.

It doesn't concern me so much that the issue of the fire-proof Spitfires hasn't been fixed. I accept that problems with the game (I think we call them 'legacy issues' these days) must be prioritized and done in a logical, ordered way, if progress is to be achieved. And, whether Spitfires burn or not doesn't change the fact that they can still be shot down. However, what worries me is the cloak of silence that has been drawn around the issue. First we were told there wasn't a problem at all (the 'are you on drugs' defence), then we were told that they did burn, but we couldn't see the flames, (the Emperor's New Clothes defence) and then, when clear video evidence of the problem was recently made available, the prominent defenders of the status quo simply appeared to close ranks and fall silent about the issue. (the War of Attrition defence) So, just what on earth are we supposed to make of this? You don't need a folio of charts and graphs to know that something is clearly wrong here. The Spitfire, unlike other aircraft in the sim, doesn't appear to catch fire. A year ago I'd have simply said this is just another issue which will no doubt be fixed over time, but now I'm not so sure. The issue is so glaringly obvious and yet I don't think I've ever seen it formally acknowledged. And when the issue has been raised, instead of just agreeing that there appears to be a problem and assigning a work number, we are met with a wall of what must now appear to the casual observer as something approaching orchestrated denial. Is there some sort of agenda here because I'm starting to run out of plausible explanations to the contrary? Would anyone on TF be prepared to tell us what's going on? We know from the PK issue that things can happen very quickly when there's a will to do something but in this case not so much it would seem. Anyway, some sort of explanation would not only be appreciated, it would also help to dispel any lingering uncertainties.


Wulf, the issue certainly is there. No one is denying it as far as I know.
As for the invisible fire this is also true, or was.
Fact is that the the only fire that the Spitfire seemed to suffer was "secondary oil fire" Meaning that oil in the system catches fire. This effects was always there but almost invisible to see. This effect was changed for 4.3. (However I haven't seen many engine fires at all for ANY side for some reason only fuel tank fires.)
Im wondering if there is a maybe a difference between online and offline.

There are currently two types of damage that I can think of that will create engine fire. Its 1. Cylinder fire and 2. Secondary oil fire. (both had their effects tuned for TF4.3)
On top of this, we have fuel tank fire as you can see for the 109 and sometimes for the Hurricane. Looking at the DM code for various planes it is a bit of a mystery to us why the Spitfire fuel tank doesn't catch fire. According to the codes it should catch fire just as easily as other planes when its hit at the right place, but it just doesn't!

For TF5.0 the DM will be overhauled as we are starting to understand its coding! Pls bear with us, this is as important for us as it is for you. Remember, we also play the game, and what is annoying to you is also annoying to us!
Hope this clears the confusion! ;)

Cheers

Wulf
Apr-09-2014, 23:47
Wulf, the issue certainly is there. No one is denying it as far as I know.
As for the invisible fire this is also true, or was.
Fact is that the the only fire that the Spitfire seemed to suffer was "secondary oil fire" Meaning that oil in the system catches fire. This effects was always there but almost invisible to see. This effect was changed for 4.3. (However I haven't seen many engine fires at all for ANY side for some reason only fuel tank fires.)
Im wondering if there is a maybe a difference between online and offline.

There are currently two types of damage that I can think of that will create engine fire. Its 1. Cylinder fire and 2. Secondary oil fire. (both had their effects tuned for TF4.3)
On top of this, we have fuel tank fire as you can see for the 109 and sometimes for the Hurricane. Looking at the DM code for various planes it is a bit of a mystery to us why the Spitfire fuel tank doesn't catch fire. According to the codes it should catch fire just as easily as other planes when its hit at the right place, but it just doesn't!

For TF5.0 the DM will be overhauled as we are starting to understand its coding! Pls bear with us, this is as important for us as it is for you. Remember, we also play the game, and what is annoying to you is also annoying to us!
Hope this clears the confusion! ;)

Cheers


OK, thanks Kling. If you're saying TF recognize this as some sort of issue that needs to be looked at with a view to corrective measures being incorporated in TF5 then that's good enough for me.

Thanks for taking time to clarify the issue.

Kling
Apr-10-2014, 00:29
OK, thanks Kling. If you're saying TF recognize this as some sort of issue that needs to be looked at with a view to corrective measures being incorporated in TF5 then that's good enough for me.

Thanks for taking time to clarify the issue.

Indeed ;)

Robo.
Apr-10-2014, 05:51
I always believed the additional safety equipment like fuel tank protection or cockpit shield armour were only added to the E-7 variants (some sources mention late E-4 production.), but this don't necessarily apply to the BoB era. The 'Panzerplate' shown in the diagram as letter e) was installed much later afik, e.g. Bf 109Es bought by Slovak Air Force from the Luftwaffe in 1941 did not have this fuselage armour installed - and they were all refurbished BoB aircraft. Also, none of the Emils unearthed and currently in restoration does seem to show any sign of such armour and you can see Radios and everything else still being in its original location. There is no mention of this installation anywhere - no manual, original or modern cutout or even anecdotal evidence from BoB era. The British descriptions of aircraft shot down during BoB do mention 'standard bulkhead', but I always thought they meant the actual bulkhead between the cockpit and fuselage. The description would require internal structures to be investigated thoroughly which does not seem to be the case with this primary reports mentioning usual details like damage suffered, fate of the pilot, armament and basic information about protection - 'standard cross protection' is the rear side of the cockpit and they simply state that there was or there was not additional head protection installed.

This is my personal opinion and of course I don't claim to be right, I am just a bit skeptical and would be honestly surprised if anyone could bring an evidence that the E-7 type protection was being used in 1940 in E-3s and early E-4s, that's all. I will be glad to learn anything new on this subject.

Mysticpuma
Apr-10-2014, 07:22
Wulf, the issue certainly is there. No one is denying it as far as I know.
As for the invisible fire this is also true, or was.
Fact is that the the only fire that the Spitfire seemed to suffer was "secondary oil fire" Meaning that oil in the system catches fire. This effects was always there but almost invisible to see. This effect was changed for 4.3. (However I haven't seen many engine fires at all for ANY side for some reason only fuel tank fires.)
Im wondering if there is a maybe a difference between online and offline.

There are currently two types of damage that I can think of that will create engine fire. Its 1. Cylinder fire and 2. Secondary oil fire. (both had their effects tuned for TF4.3)
On top of this, we have fuel tank fire as you can see for the 109 and sometimes for the Hurricane. Looking at the DM code for various planes it is a bit of a mystery to us why the Spitfire fuel tank doesn't catch fire. According to the codes it should catch fire just as easily as other planes when its hit at the right place, but it just doesn't!

For TF5.0 the DM will be overhauled as we are starting to understand its coding! Pls bear with us, this is as important for us as it is for you. Remember, we also play the game, and what is annoying to you is also annoying to us!
Hope this clears the confusion! ;)

Cheers

Wulf, I'd also like to add, there is no intention to hide anything, the thing is, if what can be said has already been said there is not much more to add to it. It's important to remember that we don't have the Source Code which would make everything so much easier, it's all about reverse engineering and discovering paths, that lead to paths, that lead to other paths.

The best way to try and qualify this is the release of v4.3 was delayed. Why? Well if you remember from the original 'Vanilla' version, there had been a long-standing problem with ground targets and objects showing through clouds. This had been there for 'years'. So with two-days before v4.3 was due to be released our coder managed to find 'the issue' and it was resolved. Now he and Team Fusion didn't find that when patch v3.0 was being made and neither was it found for Patch v3.01 or v4.00 .....BUT....it was found and then fixed.

There is no deceit or bias in the fixes that are made, it's a case of fix what we can, how we can and when we can. If it can't be fixed, changed or altered 'yet', then it isn't because it's deliberate..it's because we, a group of guys with some amazing talented minds (not me I should add), haven't been able to backtrack through the code, shaders, DM and FM to find the source of the issue. It's been posted on the forums that TF are actively trying to find the reason BUT it may not get fixed until v5.00. It's just not possible for TF to fix everything in one go and although I'd like to see all aircraft with great burning, smoke particle effects, if it can't be done yet, it's because it can't be done yet!

Digging through the code and files takes huge amounts of time and effort and I'll repeat what I have said many times before. It's done as a hobby, for free and in our own time. This is a thread about the community and as part of the community we try and explain when things are an issue for members of that community, the problems and also explain when/if they get fixed. Currently we know the Spitfire fuel tank doesn't erupt in flames. Does that mean the rest of the Sim is broken? No. Does it mean it's unplayable? No. Does it mean we have to fix it? No. Does Team Fusion want to discover why it happens and look at fixing? Yes!

Everything takes time and it takes 'our' time. No-one pays to download the fixes or updates. If we were an official studio, the next Theatre we are creating for free would probably retail as a £14.99 expansion on Steam. It's that big. But we don't do it for the money...we do it for the Community, as part of the Community and (currently) for fun and the enjoyment of seeing Cliffs of Dover becoming 'THE' most accurate WW2 Combat Flight Sim available....and it only costs a few pounds/dollars, which when you consider just what is possible, is a no-brainer if you want to buy software of this genre.

Team Fusion are on the task of fixing, repairing and upgrading CloD...time is a commodity we have, we hope the community is willing to trade with us in that commodity?

Cheers, MP

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-10-2014, 07:35
I always believed the additional safety equipment like fuel tank protection or cockpit shield armour were only added to the E-7 variants (some sources mention late E-4 production.), but this don't necessarily apply to the BoB era. The 'Panzerplate' shown in the diagram as letter e) was installed much later afik, e.g. Bf 109Es bought by Slovak Air Force from the Luftwaffe in 1941 did not have this fuselage armour installed - and they were all refurbished BoB aircraft.

No... The armor plate is already mentioned in the December 1939 Emil E-1 and E-3 manual. It isn't an E-7 thing. The E-7 manuals were however made after the armor was already introduced, so there was probably an opportunity to update the drawings. I have not seen an E-4 manual yet, if there is any at all, but all the previous manuals drawings were made in 1938, when armor was of course not yet fitted. Given that the E-7 was introduced in August 1940, and had some extra functions, there was some chance that its manuals listed the improvements introduced in the meantime.

[QUOTE=Robo.;111616]Also, none of the Emils unearthed and currently in restoration does seem to show any sign of such armour and you can see Radios and everything else still being in its original location. There is no mention of this installation anywhere - no manual, original or modern cutout or even anecdotal evidence from BoB era.

What manuals? All the manuals posted well pre-date the BoB era.. as for the Emils unearthed, I am curious of any examples because its a very very vague claim. The Hungarian AF also received some Emils later in the war, but they were just for training.

Anecdotes? Mölders plane was pumped full of lead by Malan early in the BoB and he got away with a splinter leg wounds. Curious isn't it.


The British descriptions of aircraft shot down during BoB do mention 'standard bulkhead', but I always thought they meant the actual bulkhead between the cockpit and fuselage.

Well I am curious how you managed to read that into British inspection reports I have recetly posted. It doesn't make much sense to me that they would describe in the armor section something that matches exactly how the armor was fitted to the Emil, if that was just structure. Why the fuss about it?


This is my personal opinion and of course I don't claim to be right, I am just a bit skeptical and would be honestly surprised if anyone could bring an evidence that the E-7 type protection was being used in 1940 in E-3s and early E-4s, that's all. I will be glad to learn anything new on this subject.

Again, read the E-1 / E-3 December 1939 manual. Panzerplatten is clearly mentioned there. As is the Verstellautomatik - that wasn't just an E-4 thing either.

vranac
Apr-10-2014, 07:55
No... The armor plate is already mentioned in the December 1939 Emil E-1 and E-3 manual. It isn't an E-7 thing.



Again, read the E-1 / E-3 December 1939 manual. Panzerplatten is clearly mentioned there. As is the Verstellautomatik - that wasn't just an E-4 thing either.

Strange, I couldn't find Panzerplatten in German manual. Or in this one from 1940.

http://www.dodaj.rs/t/3U/qJ/4rlfJkwf/109e-naslovna.jpg (http://www.dodaj.rs/?3U/qJ/4rlfJkwf/109e-naslovna.jpg)

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-10-2014, 08:07
L.Dv. 556/3 (Entwurf) BF 109 E Flugzeughandbuch, promulgated 16 December, 1939, Berlin.

Mentions in text that the weight of armor plates is not yet included in the given weight and loading tables.

trademe900
Apr-11-2014, 07:54
L.Dv. 556/3 (Entwurf) BF 109 E Flugzeughandbuch, promulgated 16 December, 1939, Berlin.

Mentions in text that the weight of armor plates is not yet included in the given weight and loading tables.

Which armor plates though? They could be the 8mm seat armor and head plate?

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-15-2014, 05:39
They just mention "armor plate". This might be the bulkhead only, as I understand "Panzerplatte" is singular form in German.

Vlerkies
Apr-15-2014, 09:43
From I have seen they mention 'Platte'.

Oersted
Apr-17-2014, 17:48
Bader and Galland saw a lot of each other after the war:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/461759768014529926/
http://londonsite.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/galland.jpg?w=640&h=483

Here are pictures of their meeting during the war:
http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/ases/galland17.jpg
http://api.ning.com/files/8CHlPifuA0KWc7p8bN9Ba3a*rzup6-sZQBD6GRQ8sMUR*h2zzTIWxCbSAXoMx5Iye5*xqHvjNqC9UzyN CeF32ozoQVQf*9m0/20111130_15.JPG?width=750
http://dl.flashkhor.com/gallery/albums/userpics/12748/5-Pilots-RAF-Douglas-Bader-with-Adolf-Galland-Aug-9-1941-01.jpg
http://www.relojdeavion.es/IMAGENES/SPITFIRE/badermeser.jpg
http://api.ning.com/files/Ewdrg7RFRTnhzYkJ7DMH0h4OqxbMDSL*NhLWW4bLXHm69cvvIs ykJrUn*G3GQiXvOZEp6J9ZBiAWogo4zLJSFLeMhUqQQ*Sj/BaderreceivedbyGallandJG26.jpg

German soldiers with the prosthetic leg parachuted to them for Bader:
http://api.ning.com/files/I6Ia79mnAVG4copDxN38gBjG9q9p-XtLo4pA*cj1VpJa30bR4fc2EEJILyOh-vTIIYydIn7j*0e8NNqBRlMpO5ullOP15uRd/DouglasBaderandhisGermanCaptors2.jpg

nic727
Apr-29-2014, 19:03
You should try to make something like that for the next Team Fusion patch :)

9374

Vlerkies
Apr-30-2014, 17:14
9380


Thanks for the images, great post. What a different world it must have been then.

Note the 'full' rear armour head and top head protection in this picture.

Vlerkies
Apr-30-2014, 17:44
You should try to make something like that for the next Team Fusion patch :)

9374

Don't be silly, in my meager 500+ hours I have only ever seen 1 Spitfire burn (today on atag and recorded), let alone a Hurricane, that must be a hack ;)

I burned a fiery death twice tonight, both dead black within less than 5 secs, in the space of a few hours of eachother, guess I just should not get shot as the RAF say, ever.

LBR=H.Ostermann
May-20-2014, 09:14
S!

Look what i found.

Bf109 E

9706

hnbdgr
May-20-2014, 09:22
S!

Look what i found.

Bf109 E

9706

source: http://ktsorens.tihlde.org/flyvrak/reatkavaara.html]

...and he bailed out over Russian territory and became POW....

How did he manage to bail out? How come he didn't fade to black in 5 seconds...!:D

EDIT: I found this one:

http://www.polishsquadronsremembered.com/306/Zieba_wreck.jpg