Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MiloMorai on March 29, 2014, 03:02:27 PM
-
Mosquito crash in Canadian bush.
(http://data.thememoryproject.com/image/987_original.jpg)
Many more never seen photos of people, airplanes, ships and ground vehicles, http://www.thememoryproject.com/image-gallery/all-images/order:rand/
-
I have yet to read any period comments about the Mossie being weak or vulnerable.
-
Many thanks for that, it really is a great link.
From what I can make out of the serial number and the info to hand, I think your pic is KB281, which crashed near Debert Nova Scotia in 1944. I *think* it was with 8 OTU, a training unit.
-
No. 8 OTU was at Greenwood NS with Mosquitoes (also Bolingbrokes, Harvards, Hudsons and Oxfords). No 7 OTU was at Debert NS and flew Hudsons and Bolingbrokes.
Good eyes Scherf. :aok
-
I have yet to read any period comments about the Mossie being weak or vulnerable.
Very fragile in AH though :noid
-
Saw dust to saw dust, ashes to ashes, wood to the woods.
R.I.P
-
It crashed in the wilderness near Ontario. :old:
-
It crashed in the wilderness near Ontario. :old:
Can you see those woods from Detroit? :old:
The Mosquito might have taken root and repaired itself. Fantastic :banana:
-
Very fragile in AH though :noid
Due to size as discussed in the recent Yak-9U vs Yak-3 thread. Shots on big aircraft are more likely to concentrate on the same "damage area" whereas on a small fighter the same spread of rounds hits multiple "damage areas". As an example using made up numbers, burst that does 10 damage to a Mossie's inner right wing and 2 damage to its fuselage, neatly removing the right wing by exceeding its 9 damage value threshold may well not kill a Yak-3 when centered on the Yak's inner right wing because it might do 3 points to the Yak's inner right wing, 2 points to the outer right wing, 2 points to the center fuselage, 2 points to the inner left wing and the rest that hit the Mossie miss entirely, leaving the Yak to fly off apparently unhurt because the 3 damage to its inner right wing didn't exceed the Yak's inner wing value of 4. The Mossie's inner right wing is just so much larger in area that it causes damage to be tracked in a focused manner.
This is an artifact of AH simple damage model. The solutions that I see would be either a much more detailed damage model, something that is prohibitively difficult, or making damage area's as uniform in size as possible across aircraft, meaning that a B-29 would have many, many more damage areas than an I-16. Both would require major overhauls of the damage model and perhaps graphics.
-
Due to size as discussed in the recent Yak-9U vs Yak-3 thread. Shots on big aircraft are more likely to concentrate on the same "damage area" whereas on a small fighter the same spread of rounds hits multiple "damage areas". As an example using made up numbers, burst that does 10 damage to a Mossie's inner right wing and 2 damage to its fuselage, neatly removing the right wing by exceeding its 9 damage value threshold may well not kill a Yak-3 when centered on the Yak's inner right wing because it might do 3 points to the Yak's inner right wing, 2 points to the outer right wing, 2 points to the center fuselage, 2 points to the inner left wing and the rest that hit the Mossie miss entirely, leaving the Yak to fly off apparently unhurt because the 3 damage to its inner right wing didn't exceed the Yak's inner wing value of 4. The Mossie's inner right wing is just so much larger in area that it causes damage to be tracked in a focused manner.
This is an artifact of AH simple damage model. The solutions that I see would be either a much more detailed damage model, something that is prohibitively difficult, or making damage area's as uniform in size as possible across aircraft, meaning that a B-29 would have many, many more damage areas than an I-16. Both would require major overhauls of the damage model and perhaps graphics.
I didn't see that thread Karnak. Especially in contrast to the pre Yak-3 Yaks which are small and took a massive pounding, the Mosquito losing one half of its single wing at the fuselage join is a bit ridiculous. A larger structure also distributes the stress and should make it more resilient, not less. Isn't this the case with things like the A-20?
I'm not sure about the damage modeling of the fuselage in AH because I haven't flown the Mosquito too much, but that truly monocoque structure would very be hard to weaken and snap off. Very similar qualities to the Halifax's geodetic structure I should imagine.
-
I'm not sure about the damage modeling of the fuselage in AH because I haven't flown the Mosquito too much, but that truly monocoque structure would very be hard to weaken and snap off. Very similar qualities to the Halifax's geodetic structure I should imagine.
The Wellington used geodetic structure.
Halifax cut away drawing showing structure
(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/7176/hp61halifaxmkiimilitary.gif)
-
I didn't see that thread Karnak. Especially in contrast to the pre Yak-3 Yaks which are small and took a massive pounding, the Mosquito losing one half of its single wing at the fuselage join is a bit ridiculous. A larger structure also distributes the stress and should make it more resilient, not less. Isn't this the case with things like the A-20?
I'm not sure about the damage modeling of the fuselage in AH because I haven't flown the Mosquito too much, but that truly monocoque structure would very be hard to weaken and snap off. Very similar qualities to the Halifax's geodetic structure I should imagine.
That isn't how the damage model for AH works. It simply divides the aircraft's structure into sub-components. You can see what those are by looking at the damage list after you crash your airplane and tear everything off of it. The things that the Mossie has that the Yak-3 does not have are only related to having more guns and having two engines. Structurally they have the same number of sub-components with the Mossie's just having more hit points.
The problem with that is that the Mossie's sections are very much larger and are therefor much more likely to be hit by all of an enemy's attack rather than have the attack distributed across the aircraft.
The Mossie is very tough in AH if you are suffering a death of a thousand cuts. It is very weak when a solid burst hits you because it tends to all hit the tail, or all hit the outer wing, or all hit the inner wing, ect, ect. In a small fighter like the Russians used that damage often gets spread over multiple sub-components, not doing enough damage to any one component to cause failure and that makes them seem tougher even though when tested they are not.
-
The Wellington used geodetic structure.
Halifax cut away drawing showing structure
(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/7176/hp61halifaxmkiimilitary.gif)
Oh yes, I always get those two names mixed up. I meant the Wellington, apologies.
That isn't how the damage model for AH works. It simply divides the aircraft's structure into sub-components. You can see what those are by looking at the damage list after you crash your airplane and tear everything off of it. The things that the Mossie has that the Yak-3 does not have are only related to having more guns and having two engines. Structurally they have the same number of sub-components with the Mossie's just having more hit points.
The problem with that is that the Mossie's sections are very much larger and are therefor much more likely to be hit by all of an enemy's attack rather than have the attack distributed across the aircraft.
The Mossie is very tough in AH if you are suffering a death of a thousand cuts. It is very weak when a solid burst hits you because it tends to all hit the tail, or all hit the outer wing, or all hit the inner wing, ect, ect. In a small fighter like the Russians used that damage often gets spread over multiple sub-components, not doing enough damage to any one component to cause failure and that makes them seem tougher even though when tested they are not.
I'm sure you know better than I so I shan't argue with you Karnak, but how come the A-20 is so much tougher if the problem is inherently in scaling the damage model. Can't they just make the thresholds higher?
-
I'm not sure about the damage modeling of the fuselage in AH because I haven't flown the Mosquito too much, but that truly monocoque structure would very be hard to weaken and snap off. Very similar qualities to the Halifax's geodetic structure I should imagine.
But at the same time since the skin on a monocoque structure takes the load any compromise to the skin would weaken the structure.
-
I'm sure you know better than I so I shan't argue with you Karnak, but how come the A-20 is so much tougher if the problem is inherently in scaling the damage model. Can't they just make the thresholds higher?
They could, but that then makes the big plane's ridiculously tough to anything that isn't concentrated. I suspect this may the the case with at least certain sub-components of the A-20. It is a balancing act and I think HTC might need to error a little bit more in favor of toughening up the big fighters, Bf110C-4b, Bf110G-2, Me410, Mosquito Mk VI, P-38G, P-38J, P-38L, P-47D-11, P-47D-25, P-47D-40, P-47M and P-47N.
-
But at the same time since the skin on a monocoque structure takes the load any compromise to the skin would weaken the structure.
Aha! But it's the whole surface of the monocoque which takes the load, not specific points on it. You'd have to do a cartoon dot stitch or take out a vast section to have it fail.
They could, but that then makes the big plane's ridiculously tough to anything that isn't concentrated. I suspect this may the the case with at least certain sub-components of the A-20. It is a balancing act and I think HTC might need to error a little bit more in favor of toughening up the big fighters, Bf110C-4b, Bf110G-2, Me410, Mosquito Mk VI, P-38G, P-38J, P-38L, P-47D-11, P-47D-25, P-47D-40, P-47M and P-47N.
Bah. That's frustrating.
-
They could, but that then makes the big plane's ridiculously tough to anything that isn't concentrated. I suspect this may the the case with at least certain sub-components of the A-20. It is a balancing act and I think HTC might need to error a little bit more in favor of toughening up the big fighters, Bf110C-4b, Bf110G-2, Me410, Mosquito Mk VI, P-38G, P-38J, P-38L, P-47D-11, P-47D-25, P-47D-40, P-47M and P-47N.
I'd say more in the direction of softening up the little fighters myself.
-
What I mean to say is that the big fighters already take plenty hits, so don't harden them. Reduce the tank-like hardness of some of the smaller ones instead.
-
I have always thought the P47 should be harder to kill than they are in AH.
OTOH I find the extra armoured birds, FW190A8, does not take one extra hit from a Wirbie compared with any other single engined fighter without the extra armour it carry.
The extra extra armoured FW190F8, the extra armour only do good against auto-acks and buffs.
Since there is very little action weekdays Euro time lately, more effort to kill grounds has become more intense than before.