Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Pannono on June 25, 2008, 11:49:25 AM
-
I feel that the Jug is fragile in this game, and I am most likely not alone. For example, last night, a P-51D shot my wing off with just a few shots from D600 when I was in a P-47D-11. I had been untouched previously. I'm asking for an increase in armor, something to the B-25C's standard.
-
I feel that the Jug is fragile in this game, and I am most likely not alone. For example, last night, a P-51D shot my wing off with just a few shots from D600 when I was in a P-47D-11. I had been untouched previously. I'm asking for an increase in armor, something to the B-25C's standard.
Is.... that.....good? :aok :huh
-
I'd be interested in the P-51's take on it- how fast he was going, how close he was on his FE, what his convergence was.
If he was in a high speed pass, stable, and put a 1/2 a sec to a full second burst into your wing....I could see what you describe as happening.
do you have film of this?
When I fly the D-11, it seems to absorb a lot of punishment.
-
Structurally, not so much fragile, but random, as Widewing has pointed out.
There are, however 3, areas of fragility with both Jugs and Hogs that I consider unacountable.
1. The P&W R2800, an engine known for the ability to absorb massive punishement and continue to turn, seems to go dead from machine-gun fire more than any other engine in the game, including the in-lines like the Merlin. (Same thing could be said for the BMW radials.)
2. In both planes, the pilot was heavily defended with cockpit armor. Yet in both planes seem to get more than their fair share of pilot wounds, especially the Hog. Hog pilots have to deal with a PLATE blocking their rearward vision, yet still get PWed more often? Baloney. Since this armor is part of what made the real aircraft heavier and actually incurs something of a visibility penalty in both aircraft, pilots should get some benefit from that iron they are lugging around.
3. Planes equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks should be very difficult to set on fire, but aren't. Especially the Jug. I've set both planes on fire with brief snapshots from .50s. Ridiculous. Once again, since the self-sealing tanks are part of the weight penalty for the aircraft, pilots of them should reap some benefit.
All in all, it seems to me that the Jugs and Hogs, planes know for their ruggedness, currently do not enjoy much advantage in toughness over say, the P-51D, a plane known for being less bullet-proof than its radial-powered stablemates.
-
5-10 20mm rounds will take its wing off=)
-
Structurally, not so much fragile, but random, as Widewing has pointed out.
There are, however 3, areas of fragility with both Jugs and Hogs that I consider unacountable.
1. The P&W R2800, an engine known for the ability to absorb massive punishement and continue to turn, seems to go dead from machine-gun fire more than any other engine in the game, including the in-lines like the Merlin. (Same thing could be said for the BMW radials.)
2. In both planes, the pilot was heavily defended with cockpit armor. Yet in both planes seem to get more than their fair share of pilot wounds, especially the Hog. Hog pilots have to deal with a PLATE blocking their rearward vision, yet still get PWed more often? Baloney. Since this armor is part of what made the real aircraft heavier and actually incurs something of a visibility penalty in both aircraft, pilots should get some benefit from that iron they are lugging around.
3. Planes equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks should be very difficult to set on fire, but aren't. Especially the Jug. I've set both planes on fire with brief snapshots from .50s. Ridiculous. Once again, since the self-sealing tanks are part of the weight penalty for the aircraft, pilots of them should reap some benefit.
All in all, it seems to me that the Jugs and Hogs, planes know for their ruggedness, currently do not enjoy much advantage in toughness over say, the P-51D, a plane known for being less bullet-proof than its radial-powered stablemates.
exactly what im trying to say BnZ. Thanks! :aok
-
5-10 20mm rounds will take its wing off=)
I've flown a 190Dora and hit a P-47D40. At one point, I loaded about 40 cannon rounds from 400 out and only gave him a fuel leak from what I could see. But next hit against him (about 5 cannons) took his wing off though.
-
Second these ideas. :aok
<S>
Yossarian
-
IIRC, lots of jugs flew home missing a cylinder/cylinders. The R-2800 in this game is just another POS engine with nothing strong about it.
Also, as BnZ stated, most of the weight in a jug is the armor and self sealing fuel tanks. I dont feel that we are rewarded with what we fly the jug for: survivability.
-
IIRC, lots of jugs flew home missing a cylinder/cylinders. The R-2800 in this game is just another POS engine with nothing strong about it.
Also, as BnZ stated, most of the weight in a jug is the armor and self sealing fuel tanks. I dont feel that we are rewarded with what we fly the jug for: survivability.
I understand what you are asking for, but in your initial post, you only make reference to your wing being shot off.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that the JUG had any armor in it's wings and 6 .50 cals, at convergence, on a P-51, will slice just about any wing off. So, asking for more armor will not fix your wings being sliced off.
-
IIRC, lots of jugs flew home missing a cylinder/cylinders. The R-2800 in this game is just another POS engine with nothing strong about it.
Strange. I have had numerous engine (oil) hits and, without fail, the Jug lasts longer than most other planes.
-
I understand what you are asking for, but in your initial post, you only make reference to your wing being shot off.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that the JUG had any armor in it's wings and 6 .50 cals, at convergence, on a P-51, will slice just about any wing off. So, asking for more armor will not fix your wings being sliced off.
While Armor wasn't present, it was a very, very strong structure. Guys rant into telephone poles and brought back pieces with 'em.
Engine and Pilot armor however really do need to be looked at, as well as self sealing tanks.
But, as the game is, you're right- he talked about a P51 takin his wing off.
Kinda brings up the whole "new damage model" argument. We've been forever playing with ailerons, wings, elevators all popping off and not really trying to recreate damage as it happened.
Some argument could be made for "gameplay consilation", but I think gameplay could be vastly improved.
Rather then have the items "pop off", could we possible have them "damaged" to the point of not working?
Wings would still pop off if catastrophic damage occured, though.
What I'm imaganing is, here's Pannono in his Jug, he gets bounced by a P-51. The P-51 gets a very good shot at convergence at the wingroot- which buckles under the pressure and rips free.
Alternatively, the P-51 fires outside of convergence, and peppers the entire wing with just a series of pings, however 10 bullets find their way into the flap.
When the pilot next lowers that flap, the flap doesn't work and you get the same effect as in game currently.
What I'm thinking of is planes belching smoke and fluid, and losing control rather then planes losing entire parts of their superstructure.
Also, if you kill the pilot, why not keep the plane around rather then having it just "pop"? Why not let it fall to ground?
-
Kinda brings up the whole "new damage model" argument. We've been forever playing with ailerons, wings, elevators all popping off and not really trying to recreate damage as it happened.
Some argument could be made for "gameplay consilation", but I think gameplay could be vastly improved.
Rather then have the items "pop off", could we possible have them "damaged" to the point of not working?
Wings would still pop off if catastrophic damage occured, though.
What I'm imaganing is, here's Pannono in his Jug, he gets bounced by a P-51. The P-51 gets a very good shot at convergence at the wingroot- which buckles under the pressure and rips free.
Alternatively, the P-51 fires outside of convergence, and peppers the entire wing with just a series of pings, however 10 bullets find their way into the flap.
When the pilot next lowers that flap, the flap doesn't work and you get the same effect as in game currently.
What I'm thinking of is planes belching smoke and fluid, and losing control rather then planes losing entire parts of their superstructure.
I really don't understand what you are asking for. The above is already in the game. Flaps can be damaged and not "pop off", in addition, they can also be shot off. What Pannono was asking for is a Jug that equates to the legendary status the P47 has. In my opinion, the P47 we have is plenty tough. Like any other plane, catch enough bullets in the right spot....and your virtual day gets ruined. :)
-
Of all the things in the "damage" list, if you take hits to your flaps, while they are out, they will remain "broken".
Also, if you kill the pilot, why not keep the plane around rather then having it just "pop"? Why not let it fall to ground?
I would think it's done that way to get rid of that object as soon as possible. The server must keep track of all "objects" withing a certain radius, to you (and everyone else), so multiply that by how many are in the arena ... it could be a rather daunting task, so as soon as the pilot is dead ... why keep the object around ?
-
I really don't understand what you are asking for. The above is already in the game. Flaps can be damaged and not "pop off", in addition, they can also be shot off. What Pannono was asking for is a Jug that equates to the legendary status the P47 has. In my opinion, the P47 we have is plenty tough. Like any other plane, catch enough bullets in the right spot....and your virtual day gets ruined. :)
Mmkay- I goofed that up. I'll try here in a minute.
Yeah, the Jug we have in game here is good n' tough relative to other planes in the set. I do think it's a bit pilot wound happy sometimes, though. That could be bad luck, too.
What I was "asking for" was a damage model where you as the attacker wouldn't see his entire tail section shred to oblivion, his flaps and ailerons pop off in some cartoonish manner.
-
Strange. I have had numerous engine (oil) hits and, without fail, the Jug lasts longer than most other planes.
Yes, the Jug flies a long time on an oil hit. I was speaking more about how relatively easy it seems to be to actually stop the R2800 with MG fire in AHII. Honestly, I've noticed this more with Hogs than Jugs, but since they are both R2800s, the damage modeling should be identical.
-
I understand what you are asking for, but in your initial post, you only make reference to your wing being shot off.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that the JUG had any armor in it's wings and 6 .50 cals, at convergence, on a P-51, will slice just about any wing off. So, asking for more armor will not fix your wings being sliced off.
If I remember correctly, the wing had 2 main spars, which could each theoretically support the loads incurred on the wing in normal flight even if the other failed. (High-G aerobatics admittedly would be a different kettle of fish.)
Of course, on "Dogfights" they showed an instance where a P-51D fired at a Fw-190 in a high-G turn well within convergence range. So 3 .50s hitting each wing root. Each wing failed and folded neatly over the top of the cockpit, almost like a carrier plane. Trapping the pilot unfortunately. And the Fw-190 was known for having a strong wing structure. No sir, I don't believe the .50s in AHII are over-modelled, not one little bit :D
-
I dont feel that we are rewarded with what we fly the jug for: survivability.
I don't know about you guys, but I only fly it because, since they couldn't figure out how to fit 10 Caliber .50's in the wing, they only put in 8.
-
I dont understand why pilot wounds do not display a "aggonising scream" sound..full black out and auto f5. "chase cam"
That way you would not have control, the "death effect would be there" and you could still watch your plane crater.
"Edit" *topic* what would happen if a 20mm hit a ammo belt on one* of that 47's wing loadout's.
Would not one think 3-8+ rounds of .50 blowing up..would do much more damage to one area adding the total blast damage of the 20mm aswell?
I sometimes wounder if it has that effect, and dale sits back laughing, or crying from the irony of it all.
-
If I remember correctly, the wing had 2 main spars, which could each theoretically support the loads incurred on the wing in normal flight even if the other failed. (High-G aerobatics admittedly would be a different kettle of fish.)
Of course, on "Dogfights" they showed an instance where a P-51D fired at a Fw-190 in a high-G turn well within convergence range. So 3 .50s hitting each wing root. Each wing failed and folded neatly over the top of the cockpit, almost like a carrier plane. Trapping the pilot unfortunately. And the Fw-190 was known for having a strong wing structure. No sir, I don't believe the .50s in AHII are over-modelled, not one little bit :D
For the life of me, I can never understand why people don't think that the .50 cal is a devastating weapon and are over modeled in AH II.
This video shows what just 1 .50 cal can do ... Imagine 4/6/8 of these firing on target.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WguSd63tLQ
I believe that this was the typical load in .50 planes ...
Cartridge, Caliber .50, Ball, Armor Piercing, M2
TM 9-1305-201-20&P: M2 AP
Used by M2 and M85 machine guns. The cartridge is for use against light-armored or unarmored targets, concrete shelters, and similar bullet-resisting targets.
Armor Penetration.
500 meters: 0.75 in (19 mm)
1,200 meters: 0.39 in (10 mm)
A common method for understanding the actual power of a cartridge is by comparing muzzle energies. The Springfield .30-06, the standard caliber for American soldiers in World War II and a popular caliber amongst American hunters, can produce muzzle energies between 2000 and 3000 foot pounds of energy (between 3 and 4 kilojoules). A .50 BMG round can produce between 10,000 and 13,000 foot pounds (between 14 and 18 kilojoules) or more, depending on its powder and bullet type, as well as the rifle it was fired from. Due to the high ballistic coefficient of the bullet, the .50 BMG's trajectory also suffers less "drift" from cross-winds than smaller and lighter calibers, making the .50 BMG a good choice for high powered sniper rifles.
M2 Aircraft Gun
A .50 caliber M2 machine gun that is modified for use as an aircraft gun that can be fired remotely by the pilot or gunner of a helicopter or light fixed-wing aircraft. The M2 aircraft gun has a rate of fire of 750-850 rounds per minute. The M2 aircraft gun is classified Standard A.
-
5-10 20mm rounds will take its wing off=)
5 for you and 1 for me :( :D
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WguSd63tLQ
While this isn't the most efficient way to remove a stump, it is, obviously, very effective. :)
Having seen what these puppies can do at 400 yards, I think the game is spot on.
-
While this isn't the most efficient way to remove a stump, it is, obviously, very effective. :)
Having seen what these puppies can do at 400 yards, I think the game is spot on.
It also looked like it would be good for disassembling stone walls too.
I have never seen one fired in RL, but would probably crap my pants with excitement to see it in action.
-
I've put about 50 rounds through one...most fun I've had with my clothes on.
-
5-10 20mm rounds will take its wing off=)
Yo McFly, he's talking about a P-51D. I understand you are a "Self-appointed Master of AH", but compare Apples to Apples.
-
The "armor" around the cockpit was for stopping small rounds. 20mm rounds would regularly plow through the rear armor, the armored seat, the pilot, the instrument panel, the firewall, and bury themselves in the engine (shots fired from behind). This is an example of LW rounds on Spitfires.
The armor was only effective against 30cal and 7.9mm type of machine guns.
You're talking about .50cal Browning API rounds. These bullets can cut through 1/2 an inch of SOLID STEEL ARMOR at a mile downrange.
Imagine when they're fired at 300 yards?
It's pretty accurately modeled if you ask me, overall.
P.S. Pilot wounds also happen from smaller rounds because a % of these bullets still passed through the armor. It was NOT a magical sheild, it just cut back the # of rounds to about 20% or so. Also, rounds can go *around* armor to hit the pilot. You might see him mostly on your 6, but he might have a higher angle shot, passing above the headrest armor and hitting your pilot in the head (for example).
-
One of the main reasons I stick around and pay for this game is, the realizm, I appreciate that in a flight sim. What I don't understand tho, is all the attention to detail in some areas and obvious lack there of in others, that seem to be simple, i.e. pilot pop? This game would be soooooooooooooooo much better with that detailed a little better. I wanna fly by and watch it fall to the ground lol, also adds to the dangers of a furball(collision).
The game's the best out there, but why not make it like the HOLY GRAIL of flight sims. I understand that not everyone has a good computer but you can't hold back progression for the rest of us based on someone unwilling to upgrade, kind of chokes the game. Thanks!! GO GAMBLERS!!!! :aok
-
I understand that not everyone has a good computer but you can't hold back progression for the rest of us based on someone unwilling to upgrade, kind of chokes the game.
Actually, he can. :aok
-
I've wrote an extent post on this subject, but due to the unfortunate course of events concerning the BBS wipe-out of recent, it was lost. Therefore, I am compelled to provide a shorter, yet more cynical version of the previous text.
I feel that the Jug is fragile in this game, and I am most likely not alone. For example, last night, a P-51D shot my wing off with just a few shots from D600 when I was in a P-47D-11. I had been untouched previously. I'm asking for an increase in armor, something to the B-25C's standard.
There is no such thing as armour on any of WWII-era planes. The only real armour plating was usually set up behind the pilot's seat, however the rest of the surface area is basically a thin layer of metal(in some cases even wood or canvas), a hollow shell filled with components vital for flight and control of the plane. There seems to have been some chance that small, rifle calibre bullets under 7.9mm might have bounced off, or deflected, according to the striking angle, but once the calibre reaches the realm of heavy machine guns, over .50 cal or 13mm, when it hits, it punctures through. And when it punctures through, it hits something inside.
If it merely tumbles without hitting anything vital, the plane is fine. If it damages a critical component, then the plane's normal function is disabled. Basically, it boils down to luck, because ultimately, one cannot expect a plane to be hit by bullets and actually "withstand" the impact. After all, that's why the warring countries equipped their planes with such guns in the first place.
The notion of "armour" on a plane, is entirely false.
1. The P&W R2800, an engine known for the ability to absorb massive punishement and continue to turn, seems to go dead from machine-gun fire more than any other engine in the game, including the in-lines like the Merlin. (Same thing could be said for the BMW radials.)
"More often" is a statement to be debated. Is their actual data that proves the P-47 engine is indeed, more fragile than others?
Besides, the problem with engine damages is a problem belonging to the general characteristics of how the damage system in this game is handled. It's all or nothing. Specific damages to engine components which may or may not seize the engine completely, is not modelled in the game. If this is indeed a problem for the P-47, then it's a problem for all other planes and plane components in the game as well.
2. In both planes, the pilot was heavily defended with cockpit armor. Yet in both planes seem to get more than their fair share of pilot wounds, especially the Hog. Hog pilots have to deal with a PLATE blocking their rearward vision, yet still get PWed more often? Baloney. Since this armor is part of what made the real aircraft heavier and actually incurs something of a visibility penalty in both aircraft, pilots should get some benefit from that iron they are lugging around.
Again, unsubstantiated opinions on the frequency of the pilot wounds.
I could say the same thing about the Ki-84s which I fly a lot. I feel a lot more pilot wounds happening on my 109s or Ki-84s. Except, when you think about it, I usually fly these planes more than others. So, do I feel more pilot wounds happening because it really does happen more often, or simply because I fly a lot more of those planes? There can many reasons to why you "feel" that way. So unless you have some objective data to prove it, it's basically a faulty basis to begin an argument that 'there's a problem with pilot armour'.
3. Planes equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks should be very difficult to set on fire, but aren't. Especially the Jug. I've set both planes on fire with brief snapshots from .50s. Ridiculous. Once again, since the self-sealing tanks are part of the weight penalty for the aircraft, pilots of them should reap some benefit.
Again, "feelings".
It could take only one round of bullet penetrating a fuel tank to set it on fire. Usually fire is caught by an incendiary round setting ablaze leaking fuel, on a plane that has its fuel tank punctured and leaking. Therefore, self-sealing fuel tanks may considerably lower a chance of an fire - but really, it's not as if it's an automatic extinguishing system. Besides, it's designed to stop clandestine few rounds that may damage the fuel tank. If an enemy shoots and lands multiple rounds on the fuel tank it may always fail.
So, how do you know your "brief snapshots" may not have been extremely good shots? Besides, I've seen guncam footages of planes being set on fire with brief few hits as it passes by, and these planes are also equipped with "self-sealing" fuel tanks as well.
All in all, it seems to me that the Jugs and Hogs, planes know for their ruggedness, currently do not enjoy much advantage in toughness over say, the P-51D, a plane known for being less bullet-proof than its radial-powered stablemates.
Being "rugged" is not the same thing as being "bullet proof". When a plane is hit, it will be damaged in some way, be it insignificant or fatal.
The "ruggedness" of Hogs and Jugs are usually attributed to their P&W engines, famously reliable under battle damage. When you think about it, when you fly around with a cow-sized engine block in front of you, it may act as a shield against enemy fire from the front. This is especially important for planes usually engaged in ground attacks, having to face considerable amount of AA fire - a role both the Corsairs and P-47s were allocated to after air superiority was already won in each theater of its operations. There can be many things damaged on a plane, but the most vital components which may almost immediately render a plane useless, is the fuel systems, engines, and the pilot. Under these circumstances, having a tough engine block is a direct advantage that attributes to the general survival rate of the plane and its pilot.
However, fat lot of good a tough engine will do when you are shot from the rear. Pilot seat armour has its limits - it doesn't cover the entire cockpit. Besides, they were also in many cases penetrated.
People who have survived may praise a plane for being tough, but the countless more people who've died inside it, can't say anything to us.
Is it any wonder there are only praises and hardly any criticism?
IIRC, lots of jugs flew home missing a cylinder/cylinders. The R-2800 in this game is just another POS engine with nothing strong about it.
Also, as BnZ stated, most of the weight in a jug is the armor and self sealing fuel tanks. I dont feel that we are rewarded with what we fly the jug for: survivability.
How much of those 15 thousand pounds, do you think, was "armour" - as in, "armoured plate/coat of steel or any bullte-resistant material" ?
Less than 5% I believe.
You're talking about .50cal Browning API rounds. These bullets can cut through 1/2 an inch of SOLID STEEL ARMOR at a mile downrange.
Krust makes a very ironic observation.
People are complaining about some planes "feeling" to fragile, and then, in the very same thread the same people admit and praise the .50s for its power.
Like Krusty mentions, many times in .50 discussions people would bring up the fact that a .50 round can penetrate metal engine blocks, trucks, even many milimeters of armoured plating according to striking angle. Look up any discussion concerning "tank armour" in these boards and someone always comes up with the same stuff about how .50s are such potent rounds.
However, very peculiarly, people seem to think there's some sort of a problem when their non-armoured, stress-skinned airplane is on the receiving end of a .50.
How so?
Besides, the 12.7mm 50cal round was certainly an excellent weapon, but the German MG131 13mm HMG wasn't exactly a slouch either. Not to mention that Soviet Universal-Berezin 12.7mm machine gun is considered probably the best 12.7mm~13mm HMG of WWII - a perfect combination of firing speed, power, and accuracy.
Why's it so strange to see one's pilot getting wounded when being hit by such potent guns?
It's not as if one's flying with a P&W mounted behind the pilot seat or something, no?
-
I had typed this out before but it was lost in the forum reboot. From Heinz Knoke's 'I Flew for the Fuhrer' on his first encounter with P47's. Heinz Knoke flew a Bf.109G6 at this time.
'...Then suddenly four other peculiar looking single engine aircraft dive past. They have the white star and broad white stripes as wing markings. Blast! They are Thunderbolts. I have not seen them before.
I immediately dive down after them. They swing round in a steep spiral heading for a lone Flying Fortress whose two outside engines have stopped. There is a Messerschmitt on its tail: it is Reinhard.
The bloody fool has eyes only for his fat bomber, and is unaware of the enemy fighters coming up behind.
"Reinhard, Reinhard, wake up! Thunderbolts behind!"
Reinhard does not reply, but keeps on calmly blazing away at his Fortress. I go flat out after the thunderbolts. The first of them now opens fire on my wingman. The latter just keeps firing at his victim.
But now the leading thunderbolt is a perfect target in my sights. A single burst of fire from my guns is all that is needed. It bursts into flames and goes down spinning like a dead leaf into the depths below. It is my second kill today. ...'
The Jug was NOT indestructible. A short burst could bring it down contrary to popular beliefs, it would seem.
-
In all seriousness this time, I fly the P-47 a lot in the game. Its my main ride. While I don't have any scientific evidence to prove it, I believe it is the most durable fighter in the game, even more so than the F6F, which I would put in second place. I've been chewed up many times by bomber gunners, and come out of those hits with only oil leaks, and perhaps a damaged gun. I've collided with planes and watched them fall to the ground, while I was able to fly home. I rarely suffer fires, mostly in the P-47N more so than the D models. I rarely suffer pilot wounds, and ironically seem to suffer them most from Lancaster guns (perhaps more an effect of me being lazy against such a defenseless target).
Overall, at least comparitively, I'd say the P-47 lives up to its legendary durability in game. Its not a tank though, and needs to be handled as any other aircraft in the game. The only difference, IMO, is that what damage would cripple you in another plane will only serve to give you an incentive for an early RTB in the Jug. And, I am a P-47 fanboi.
-
The armor was only effective against 30cal and 7.9mm type of machine guns.
You're talking about .50cal Browning API rounds. These bullets can cut through 1/2 an inch of SOLID STEEL ARMOR at a mile downrange.
Some designers were more confident:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/timppa/gunfire.jpg)
-
Some designers were more confident
Tim, observe closely the angles.
The "protection" mentioned in the picture is not a result of armoured resistance against bullets. Rather, it's a consequential result gained through the fact that bullets incoming from directly front/rear angles will have to make past the engine block in case of frontal fire, or past the rear vert./horiz. stabilizers and then the long fuselage in case of rounds coming from behind.
Indeed, the stabs and fuselage prove to be a major hinderance to the impacting power of machine gun rounds. But the problem is, the pilot may be unhurt, but the plane still will be. Besides, the stabs are narrow. There is always a good chance that incoming rounds will miss the stabs or the long fuselage and land directly somewhere near the rearside of the cockpit.
Guess what would happen when a .50 equivalent round misses the stabs, and impacts the rear of the cockpit with a little bit of angle so it does not enter the "long" travel of the fuselage.
-
There is always a good chance that incoming rounds will miss the stabs or the long fuselage and land directly somewhere near the rearside of the cockpit.
I would say the chance that the round would hit stabs is minimal. Do you really believe that this kind of drawing would be presented in the pilots manual if your interpretation is right ?
"The Spitfire F Mk.21, a late war model, was considered protected against German 20 mm AP rounds in a 20 degrees cone from the rear, and against 13 mm rounds from the front. The US Navy expected fighters to carry armour able to stop a .50 rounds at 200 yards"
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-ar.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-ar.html)
-
Kweassa:
I am not he only one who has noticed frequency of PWs in the Hog and engine stoppages with the R2800. No, I haven't a scientific test for it (be glad to try it if you can think of. Perhaps park a running airplane near an M-3 and fire one .50 round at a time with it until the engine goes dead? ) But I have attacked buffs quite abit with both a D-9 and a C-Hog. In the former, the radiator nearly always get shot out, but the engine hardly ever get stops. While it seems like in the C-Hog, about as many pings as usually knock out the D-9's rad will actually stop the engine.
I never expected the Hog/Jug to be flying tanks, I think that they are generally structurally rugged, although you will note the venerable WideWing has demonstrated that the Jug sometimes takes multiple 20mm pings, and sometimes just one, to remove a Jug's wing, something you must admit is odd. I just think on three points, engine stoppage, fire, and PW, they are actually a little weaker than many other planes.
-
Tim, observe closely the angles.
The "protection" mentioned in the picture is not a result of armoured resistance against bullets. Rather, it's a consequential result gained through the fact that bullets incoming from directly front/rear angles will have to make past the engine block in case of frontal fire, or past the rear vert./horiz. stabilizers and then the long fuselage in case of rounds coming from behind.
Wrong. The protection shown in the graphic is a direct result of the armored areas of the cockpit. With a 3/8" face hardened plate in the firewall, and another behind the seat pan of the pilot, you achieve the described protection against .50 cal. The 1.5" thick glass in the front windscreen gives you the protection against .30 cal and flak. The rest of the lightly shaded area merely suggests that the airframe itself protects the pilot from wounds received from .30 cal and flak.
Certainly the engine is a huge part of protecting the front of the cockpit, but not by design.
There are plenty of hypotheticals regarding pilot protection. What I've been looking for is the USAAF and USN specifications for the armor plate. If the U.S. military put it in planes, it had to have a Mil-Spec that would detail exactly what it was supposed to protect against, Brinell hardness, etc. and there would have been testing to show that the Mil-Spec was correct and achieved the specified protection.
What we really need to do in order to answer this question properly, is the data or documentation from this. Perhaps Tony Williams or others have a resource they could point us to. I found a couple of post-war tests on Oscar and Me-109 armor, but nothing on U.S. armor...yet.
-
pannono
finally something we agree on
-in 1943 there was a P47D that returned with 105 holes in his aircraft and 3 cylinders missing
-also in 1943, a p47 (not sure which model) flew THROUGH a tree on accident and returned to base just fine...not saying if u hit a tree with a jug u should live but i am saying that the P47 definitly needs some more armor rivetted on there in the game