Author Topic: Some planes seems indestructible  (Read 1703 times)

Offline lulu

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1068
Some planes seems indestructible
« on: January 01, 2013, 09:28:57 AM »
A20, 109, seem to be indestructible.
Is it my impression only?


 :salute


P.S.
I was diving on a20, in a pony 51, more then 400 mph. I fired ... A20 still there !
He turned, others fired on him. I got the kill. But I expected he exploded because
I put a lot's of bullets on him. But generally it's always the same story also when
i fire with spit cannons.
mobilis in mobile

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2013, 09:56:14 AM »
It is all about the amount of damage delivered to a particular area on a specific plane.  Not all planes are the same, not all weapons are the same.  Believe me when I say that sometimes it is frustrating, but the same thing goes for all of us.
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Max

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7818
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2013, 09:57:21 AM »
The A20 takes a lot of damage. 109's, not as much but they're nimble birds so you have to get up close & personal.

Offline Debrody

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4487
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2013, 10:11:54 AM »
The a20 can soak up well over 10 taters without any critical damage. The 109 - not so much.
IMO, the Jaks are pretty tough for their size.
AoM
City of ice

Offline Bizman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9690
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2013, 10:58:30 AM »
It also depends on where you hit them. An A20 has lots of empty space inside, especially in AH where the gunner seats aren't manned. A 20 mm hole in the aluminum wall would only add ventilation without affecting maneuverability. The weakest parts in almost any plane would be the engine area and pilot, when looking at real warbirds. Debrody, I was with the group to see the Brewster IRL closely while it was restored. We found a bullethole in the rear and it looked as if the bullet had travelled through the empty space inside the plane until hitting the cast iron back rest armor, breaking it into two pieces. That was the biggest single damage in the whole fuselage, the crashing being caused by engine hits. Makes me wonder how the WW2 pilots could fatally hit anything without the self aiming armament we have today. The aluminum walls are just one step further from the canvas of WW1 planes, mostly there only for added aerodynamics.

Offline skorpx1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2013, 11:02:27 AM »
The KI-84 seems to soak up a lot of damage. I shot 4 taters into a KI-84's wing today and nothing but a missing aileron and a flap no longer working. Makes me wonder what crazy stuff the Japanese put in that plane.

Offline Randy1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4303
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2013, 11:20:37 AM »
The P47 seems to be a bit more durable since the remodeling but that could be wishful thinking on my part. 

Doggone 109's are just plain hard to catch still long enough to cut them up.

Least durable to me is P38 and most magnetic for collecting lead.  It would be my number one plane if it didn't catch so much attention in a furbal.  Got to love those twin engines.

Offline Acidrain

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 120
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2013, 11:51:50 AM »
The KI-84 seems to soak up a lot of damage. I shot 4 taters into a KI-84's wing today and nothing but a missing aileron and a flap no longer working. Makes me wonder what crazy stuff the Japanese put in that plane.
in sure you have vid of this.

Offline fbEagle

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 584
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2013, 11:52:24 AM »
A20, 109, seem to be indestructible.
Is it my impression only?


 :salute


P.S.
I was diving on a20, in a pony 51, more then 400 mph. I fired ... A20 still there !
He turned, others fired on him. I got the kill. But I expected he exploded because
I put a lot's of bullets on him. But generally it's always the same story also when
i fire with spit cannons.


Problem is you were flying a 51...
<Insert witty remark here>

Offline Daddkev

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1727
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2013, 12:32:31 PM »
 :huh :huh :huh :rofl :rofl :rofl I was flying a Pony................says it all!  :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :lol :lol :lol :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
God Bless America
Go tell Momm, im flying! and make me a sandwich !
EvilKev

2012 68KO Cup 1st Place finisher

Offline colmbo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
      • Photos
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2013, 12:45:03 PM »
The aluminum walls are just one step further from the canvas of WW1 planes, mostly there only for added aerodynamics.
Not even close to being correct.  The skin of nearly all the aircraft was vital to the strength of the structure.  Google monocoque.
Columbo

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."

Fate whispers to the warrior "You cannot withstand the storm" and the warrior whispers back "I AM THE STORM"

Offline Bizman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9690
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2013, 01:07:36 PM »
Not even close to being correct.  The skin of nearly all the aircraft was vital to the strength of the structure.  Google monocoque.

Done. Found this Aircraft Structure page, which claims that true monocoque would be too heavy for planes, the solution being semi-monocoque. It also says that early
Quote
aircraft designers began to enclose the truss members to streamline the airplane.
, making my WW1 statement correct.
Looks like my biggest mistake was the phrase "only for -- aerodynamics". Thanks for correction, and making me look for sound information and learn something.  :salute

Offline Noir

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5964
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2013, 01:31:52 PM »
A20G, Ki84, any 'old modeling' planes including the Jak, Ju88, B26B, Lancasters etc....
now posting as SirNuke

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2013, 01:39:11 PM »
The A20 takes a lot of damage. 109's, not as much but they're nimble birds so you have to get up close & personal.

target wing or engine and they go down as fast as anything else. Target the body and unless you get a lucky shot on the cockpit. All your doing is poking holes in  a metal can. Eventually it will all add up to total structural failure but it takes alot more rounds. Though you may get some gunners
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Re: Some planes seems indestructible
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2013, 01:43:29 PM »
Not even close to being correct.  The skin of nearly all the aircraft was vital to the strength of the structure.  Google monocoque.

Ever actually touched and inspected the skin of a WWII bird?

Its about as thick as the metal in a Cambels soup can. and not nearly as stiff
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty