Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hats on May 27, 2007, 07:02:01 PM
-
which fighter or attack plane do you believe has the best protection around pilot and engine/ability to keep on chuggin'?
here are my thoughts:
1st: the p-40e: best pilot protection, and i've never had my wings shot off, EVER. lossing flaps is a biggy, though.
2nd: F4U: its an armoured bathtub, but any rounds from behind can cut off your stabilzers like chips.
3rd: P-47: its a jug. pretty tough aircraft. all around hard to break.
and your thoughts?
-
friggin jugs and TBMs seem to absorb the most damage in my experiances so far
-
Il-2
in freakin destructible
-
<---took 6 20mm shots to the nose in f6f...still lived...no damage
-
F4F / F6F ... built by Grumman ... was often referred to as the "Grumman Iron Works."
-
IL-2 built by Ilyushin was often referred to as the "Flying Tank"
-
F4F/FM2. They take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.
-
You dont see them very much but the 190F8 can be tough one.
-
Originally posted by Blooz
IL-2 built by Ilyushin was often referred to as the "Flying Tank"
agreed they are freaking tough :aok
-
There is couple cases in Finnish air force when an experienced pilot used all ammo of a three cannon Bf 109G against an Il-2 and the Il-2 just keep on flying despite big pieces were torn off. Very rugged bird; practically all vital areas were armored.
-
for single engine birds in AH, my vote goes to the IL2.
-
Originally posted by Blooz
IL-2 built by Ilyushin was often referred to as the "Flying Tank"
ive seen 7mm and 13mm rounds bounce off that thing..... no joke. :eek:
-
190F8, tough nut to crack as far as 190s go. Though I would have to say that the IL2 is freakin' redicules in the ammount of ammo it takes to kill it. The Gruman F4F anf F6F are really rugged too, I fly the F4F alot and it does well.
-
IL2 (allround) followed by 190A8 (frontal armor anyway). The F8 seems to be able to take alot of punishment in the belly.
In real life the jug was supposed to take a great deal of punishment but it seems fragile in here.
-
The IL-2s' tail is very weak. The rest of the aircraft is a titanium bathtub.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
In real life the jug was supposed to take a great deal of punishment but it seems fragile in here.
As someone who flies it frequently, I agree. It can take a beating sometimes, but usually it just takes two or three rounds and a wing or stabilizer comes off. It's one of the more durable fighters in the game but it's not nearly the flying brick it has always been hailed as.
How did it go again, the line about the Fairchild A-10? "Even more durable than the Republic P-47"?
-
in real life the Hurri. many occations pilots could still fly with a 1m diamiter hole in the wings. i've seen pics from my grandas squadron with huge chunks on fuserlarge gone and still able to fight .
1 report was of a hurri being chaced by a Bf109 th epilot pulled uot from a dive. felt a jolt looked back to see the 109 folding with the G-force. when he landed he had a 2 1/2 m crack down the belly of the craft running nose to tail direction.
-
Hurricanes were tough, but not in all parts. Much like the P-38. Mostly tough - had holes in its wings too, but of course, hit the right part, the plane comes apart.
I'd say the P-47. Bob Johnson's plane was hit so hard - cannon shells and all - a 190 emptied all its shells out on Johnson's Juggernaut and it still got home. Next, the IL-2's quite strong too.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Hurricanes were tough, but not in all parts. Much like the P-38. Mostly tough - had holes in its wings too, but of course, hit the right part, the plane comes apart.
Mmm, the idea that the P-38 had a weak tail comes from simulators. In reality, the P-38 could have one boom completely severered and still fly (it sounds unbelievable but I've seen pictures). There was no tendency to lose the tail in reality.
I'm sure you've all seen the pictures of Lightnings and Thunderbolts which hit telephone poles and flew back to base, and the P-38 which brought back an Me-109's wing in its own.
-
IL2's 47's ana f6f's
-
Have a good screenshot of an F4U-4, rudder, right flap, right elevator, 2 guns down. maybe not the most damage but the image is telling. As soon as I post the pic somewhere, I'll put the link here.
Gainsie
-
IMO anything built by Grumman is a Winged Tank. As one of the earlier posts referred to the fact that Grumman was given the name of Iron Works due to the durability of the combat aircraft they produced.
I am not familiar with most of the ETO birds so there may be many there also.
Later,
KayBay
-
Il2s are incredibly weak in-game
Any cannon hits on the horrizontal stabilizers will turn it into an armoured arrow.
At least, that seems to happen to me when I'm flying against them or in them.
-
the IL2 can take some 37mm hits
The Yak is pretty rugged also, and its oil lasts forever
-
(http://www.eel.homechoice.co.uk/freakinhell.jpg)
Ooops wrong game :o Look Ma! One horizontal stab!!
-
Originally posted by gripen
There is couple cases in Finnish air force when an experienced pilot used all ammo of a three cannon Bf 109G against an Il-2 and the Il-2 just keep on flying despite big pieces were torn off. Very rugged bird; practically all vital areas were armored.
Just finished the Blonde Knight and Hartmann had some interesting tactics against the IL2. He was able to determine the weak spots on the IL2 and that is what he aimed for. His favored tactic was to come in from behind and slightly lower and when he got in close, aimed for the belly of the IL2. Even though the belly was well protected, its oil system was vulnerable and one of the IL2's Achilles Heel. He would target other weak spots like the tail area and wings. According to Hartmann, aiming for these areas was the best way to take down an IL2. Hits to the fuselage he said almost had no effect on the IL2.
ack-ack
-
Any plane that can survive a GuppyJr landing is one tough plane.
(http://www.damninteresting.net/content/p38ice2.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Mossie in reality had a reputation for being very durable. The wooden skin did not tear away when hit by cannon rounds like aluminium did.
In AH in my experience, in no particular order:
F6F-5
F4F-4/FM-2
Hurricanes
Il-2
B-17
La-5FN/La-7
What my reading about the real deal says:
A-26 series
SBD series
F4F series
F6F series
P-38 series
P-47 series
B-17E, F and G
Beaufighter series
Mosquito series
Wellington series
Hurricane series
Lancaster series
Fw190 uparmored versions
Ju88 series
Il-2 series
Il-10 series
H8K "Emily" series
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Mmm, the idea that the P-38 had a weak tail comes from simulators. In reality, the P-38 could have one boom completely severered and still fly (it sounds unbelievable but I've seen pictures). There was no tendency to lose the tail in reality.
I'm sure you've all seen the pictures of Lightnings and Thunderbolts which hit telephone poles and flew back to base, and the P-38 which brought back an Me-109's wing in its own.
Considering the vertical stabilizer was attached to the end of the booms, I really don't see a P-38 flying for very long missing one of the booms along with part of the vertical stabilizer.
Of course, if you have such a photo showing a P-38 flying while missing one of its booms, by all means post it. "I have seen photos" just isn't sufficient enough evidence.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
"I have seen photos" just isn't sufficient enough evidence.
Benny doesn’t concern himself with such trivialities.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Of course, if you have such a photo showing a P-38 flying while missing one of its booms, by all means post it. "I have seen photos" just isn't sufficient enough evidence.
Good point. The photograph in question does not actually show the damaged aircraft in flight, but rather after landing. However, the caption in the book states that it suffered the damage in flight and managed to return to base. Whether or not that is true, if you'll look at a cross section of the P-38's tail, you will find it was quite strong. Nothing I've ever read has indicated that it was weak or prone to loss.
While I'm sure "Viking" is goose-stepping as fast as he can to come post about Ralph Virden's power-dive in a YP-38, let us take a look at what Bodie has to say about that.
"The Yippee that Virden was going to fly on November 4 had been fully instrumented, and a major change had been made in the elevator. It had been equipped with spring (servo) tabs, one at each extremity of the control surface. These large-area tabs were designed to come into operation only if the control yoke force exceeded 30 pounds. Whnever the higher forces were encountered, as they would be in a high speed dive recovery, the spring tabs would provide proportionally increased leverage to assist the pilot in overcoming the loads. Since high speeds and sharp maneuvers at low altitudes (where the air density was greater) would result in temendous leverage ... Virden was warned to restrict his low-altitude speed and maneuvering." (p. 70)
"Kelly Johnson concluded that the spring tab operating link broke before the tail came off, causing the elevator to go to full deflection." (p. 75)
Hilts once posted that Johnson felt that Virden's airplane exceeded twelve gees, but I didn't see that in my quick skim of the chapter in Bodie's book. I'll contact Hilts and see what he got that.
-
As usual Benny is being dishonest or just stupid. Whichever the case may be, I've never posted anything about Ralph Virden's test dive. I have however posted about Benjamin Kelsey's test dive.
But thank you for posting another example of a P-38 losing its tail in a controlled dive experiment.
-
Originally posted by Viking
As usual Benny is being dishonest or just stupid. Whichever the case may be, I've never posted anything about Ralph Virden's test dive.
Hmm, that's really strange. I re-read my post and didn't catch the part where I said you did.
Twelve gees at full elevator deflection, "Viking," twelve gees at full elevator deflection ... Eat your heart out. Your precious Me-109 couldn't do that in a century of futile improvements. The 109 would have folded nicely at about eight. History has consistently proven that the Me-109 broke up before American aircraft did, both in collisions and in pullouts.
(http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb170/Dregedon/goebbellol.jpg)
-
It broke up in mid-air Benny. A straw of grass can take 12 G's for a fraction of a second before breaking.
The 109 was designed to take 8 G's without taking damage, and 12 G's before failing. The P-38 was rated at 6 G's and according to Widewing it would fail at 8 Gs.
Even the “Game Info” section of the Aces High web page reflects this basic truth:
“Max G Loading- +6/-3.5”
“Eat your heart out.” :lol
Originally posted by Benny Moore
History has consistently proven that the Me-109 broke up before American aircraft did, both in collisions and in pullouts.
Only in your demented little mind Benny. :rofl
(http://www.1stfighter.org/photos/WW2_Aircraft/WreckDec43.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Viking
according to Widewing it would fail at 8 Gs.
Quote, please. There's no way I'll believe Widewing said that. You must be taking something out of context.
-
Back in the days of AH1 I put forth this question:
Originally posted by GScholz
In the plane description of the P-38 on HTC's website the P-38 is listed as having "Max G Loading- +6/-3.5". Was the P-38 really so structurally weak? In AH I seem to pull lots more G without any damage.
To which Widewing replied:
Originally posted by Widewing
Typically, American fighers were rated about 2 G below failure loading. Except that is, Grumman aircraft which repeated demonstrated the ability to survive tremendous loads without failure. One F4F survived several high G pullouts with the last one exceeding 12.5 G. This Wildcat was under test and was fully instrumented. There was no damage to the airframe, although the engine A-frame displayed some distortion. So, Grumman swapped in a new power egg and delivered the airplane to the Navy. I have about 1,600 hours in Grumman aircraft and can attest to the sobriquet "Iron Works" as not being without solid basis.
My regards,
Widewing
And Ack-Ack replied:
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
McGuire was famous for bring back planes with wings bent from stress and IIRC, it was common to see P-38s return home in such conditions.
In AW I was never able to break the wings of a P-38J, no matter how hard I tried. In AH I found out that you can snap the wings off of a P-38L if you are fully loaded with ordnance (1,000 pounders and 10 rockets) and pull around 8 Gs pulling out of a 525mph (IAS) dive. I've never been able to do it while flying without ordnance though.
As a side note about McGuire's crash, there's a theory that he died when his P-38 entered into a spin when he throttled up one engine to full before throttling back on the other and advancing them together. If you don't do it that way, you can cause the P-38 to enter into a vicious spin and at low altitudes (like Mcguire and his flight was at) it's almost usually fatal. This coincides with the surviving members of the flight witness reports of hearing one of McGuire's P-38's engine throttling up before he crashed. Coupled with the fact that McGuire was not flying his normal mount and he violated one of his dictas by not pickling the drop tanks when engaging in combat, it was the final link needed to cause his demise.
Maybe Widewing or Savage have a copy of the report that was done on the crash a few years ago, since I originally got it from one of them.
ack-ack
Franz Stigler (28 victories, 4 viermots) on the 109’s wings:
Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 losing its wings from his experience or others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never worried about losing a wing in any form of combat.
Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk.
-
Ah, I thought so. Widewing didn't say that it'd fail at eight gees.
-
He said "Typically, American fighers were rated about 2 G below failure loading. Except that is, Grumman aircraft...", and the P-38 was rated at 6 G's. Doing the math is not that difficult ... Not even for you Benny.
-
Yes, that means that he is guessing, and that eight gees is his best estimate based on the lack of data. I respect Widewing's opinion greatly (unlike you, who only respect it when he says something negative about an American airplane), but I'll still go with Kelly Johnson on this one. He designed the airplane, after all.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Mossie in reality had a reputation for being very durable. The wooden skin did not tear away when hit by cannon rounds like aluminium did.,
In reality there were cases where it became unglued in midair, without being hit by enemy fire, especially in the Far East.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Yes, that means that he is guessing, and that eight gees is his best estimate based on the lack of data. I respect Widewing's opinion greatly (unlike you, who only respect it when he says something negative about an American airplane), but I'll still go with Kelly Johnson on this one. He designed the airplane, after all.
When a great fan of the aircraft and … alleged historian speaks of its shortcomings it is of infinitely greater value than when a designer boasts about what he “felt” his own creation could do. I say again, the P-38 in question broke up in mid air.
I must say I find the notion somewhat amusing that Johnson would look at the P-38 confetti falling from the sky and say ‘look how strong it is!’ I think you made that part up Benny.
-
durability and ruggedness; Benny Moore or Viking?
-
He's not a Viking, he's a disgrace.
-
*Feigns a heart attack*
Ouch, that really hurt Benny. :rofl Like always you turn to ad hominem arguments.
-
A real Viking would probably use an honest axe, not clever simpering and underhanded word games.
-
It's too far to sail for such simple pleasures.
-
Originally posted by TimRas
In reality there were cases where it became unglued in midair, without being hit by enemy fire, especially in the Far East.
You can count the number of times that happened on the fingers of one hand.
I would hardly use that as a basis of its durability.
-
(http://www.tilt.clara.net/pics/IL2m3.jpg)
Pliot landed this one
-
I vote the FM2. I call it "the nimble pig". It shrugs off 50 cals well. In a furball I treat 303 or 50 cal strikes as "turn indicators". I fought CFYA(and lost horribly) one night Hurri mk1 vs FM2....let's just say I presented a target the entire time and he didn't miss much, yet the fights lasted a while. Of course they were 303's, but still I think he put about 2000 of them into that FM2 before I started losing all my parts. F6F's are sturdy as well, but the engine gets shot out by ack quite easily(just my opinion).
-
Originally posted by Karnak
You can count the number of times that happened on the fingers of one hand.
I would hardly use that as a basis of its durability.
Nor would I. (De Havilland did change the casein based glues to formaldehyde glues though). I also would not use "reputation" (or anecdotes) as any basis. You have any data on "The wooden skin did not tear away when hit by cannon rounds like aluminium did" ?
-
Formal test data? No.
MK108 vs Blenheim:
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg)
MK108 vs Mosquito PR.Mk XVI (two or more hits):
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MossMk108Dam.jpg)
Further, the structural members in a Mossie are physically larger due to being made of wood, so losing a chunk of a given size leaves a corrispondingly larger amount of material remaining and thus more strength remaining.