Author Topic: fire for belly landings  (Read 2227 times)

Offline grizz441

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7000
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2010, 07:30:41 PM »
Realistic or not, I think it's a good idea.  I am a habitual belly lander because there really is no incentive to land with your wheels.  If your plane burst into flames as result of a poor landing, I think it would help encourage a less 'gamey' way of landing quickly to save time. 

Offline Denholm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9667
      • No. 603 Squadron
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2010, 10:55:42 PM »
People pay to have fun, not get penalized for deciding to re-up as quickly as possible. As others have mentioned, landing SAPP style does come with consequences. Leave things the way they are.
Get your Daily Dose of Flame!
FlameThink.com
No. 603 Squadron... Visit us on the web, if you dare.

Drug addicts are always disappointed after eating Pot Pies.

Offline muzik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2011, 12:21:22 PM »
Contrary to the silly arguments that belly landings are completely safe, you have a great idea. I might even decide to post 20 you tube videos showing the real dangers of belly landings..... Nah, it doesnt take a genius to know that belly landing a combat aircraft is a huge gamble.

Did anyone check the fuel gauges of the planes in those videos? Did the combat aircraft in those films have any ords left, or rounds in the guns? Did they have battle damage that that compromised the strength of the aircraft in a critical spot or a golden BB strike that waits until the crews hopes are at the highest point thinking they are going to live until an explosion takes them at the last moment.

These things happened thousands of times during the war. They were not safe and rarely had the picture perfect conditions of a youtube video.

Your idea is well thought out. I like the idea of increasing probability of fire with more damage especially with fuel leak.

And as Grizz pointed out, we have no incentive whatsoever to fear for our lives or that of the aircraft which is extremely gamey. There is "a fine line between fun and war" and different games draw that line at different levels. I'd prefer a game thats harder and more realistic than 'Blazing Angels'
Fear? You bet your life...but that all leaves you as you reach combat. Then there's a sense of great excitement, a thrill you can't duplicate anywhere...it's actually fun. Yes, I think it is the most exciting fun in the world. — Lt. Col. Robert B. "Westy" Westbrook, USAAF 6/<--lol@mod

Offline muzik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2011, 05:45:31 PM »
You really think a fire is more realistic?  You really think it's the norm?
No fire, not even a spark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVmHyJMDcus
No fire, a little smoke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnuKgAcOD2Q&NR=1&feature=fvwp
No fire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZvNmt57rE&feature=related
No fire.  Two gear down, one up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnGgMSCpu2A&feature=related
No fire. Some sparks.  Got the #1 wire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ak3gBImhLI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTNMcs4-29Y
No fire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfoxq4q4J84
No fire(s):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVDq-smSkas&feature=related
No fire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dJCxn7y3_c&feature=related
No fire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bOvSYfBNOU&feature=related
Two fires, the only ones I found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpCLeWqY0w&feature=related
I think it's more realistic the way it is already.
wrongway



I guess when your education comes from youtube, it's easy to miss some pages like this one.  Pay particular attention to 4:40 to 6:10   "...Your biggest danger..."   Correction  5:40-6:10
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EVUZZjuDHw
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 05:49:12 PM by muzik »
Fear? You bet your life...but that all leaves you as you reach combat. Then there's a sense of great excitement, a thrill you can't duplicate anywhere...it's actually fun. Yes, I think it is the most exciting fun in the world. — Lt. Col. Robert B. "Westy" Westbrook, USAAF 6/<--lol@mod

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2011, 05:49:55 PM »
theres something in one of spike milligans biographies where he talks about how wwII differed from the movie version, something like I must have seen 20 planes crash and not one of them burst into flames.


the jug had a hardened belly section specifically for belly landing, any other planes have this designed in? :headscratch:
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline muzik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2011, 06:07:01 PM »
20 is not much of an example. And it could be a fact that it's better than 1 in a million odds, but I guarantee you could make diamonds with your bellybutton cheeks if it was you that had to do it!  In any case, you and Milligan can argue with Aanenson all you want!
Fear? You bet your life...but that all leaves you as you reach combat. Then there's a sense of great excitement, a thrill you can't duplicate anywhere...it's actually fun. Yes, I think it is the most exciting fun in the world. — Lt. Col. Robert B. "Westy" Westbrook, USAAF 6/<--lol@mod

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2011, 06:07:45 PM »
The jug routed turbocharger pipes along the belly.. I think it was necessary. Most other planes had airframe right there to take the shock.

A large number of WW2 planes landed damaged or belly landed with no fire.


Simply adding fire to "make people use their landing gear" is foolish. It punishes folks that actually have damage for an inconsequential reason.

You want folks to land with their gear down? You can no more control that than you can making them fly with combat trim vs manual trim, or to make them land with their engine off vs engine idled.

It makes no difference in the end. You pay their $15 a month and then they'll listen to ya!


P.S. It's not as bad as you think. Hell I've even seen youtube of a Cessna pilot that landed and forgot to lower gear. Makes a loud noise but other than prop damage (if that, depends on the plane!) mostly it's a very safe thing to do*



* = assuming it's not with something big under the wings, like a 262 where the engines can rip off by digging in -- but these cases seem rare
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 06:09:25 PM by Krusty »

Offline Seadog36

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2011, 06:38:01 PM »
theres something in one of spike milligans biographies where he talks about how wwII differed from the movie version, something like I must have seen 20 planes crash and not one of them burst into flames.


the jug had a hardened belly section specifically for belly landing, any other planes have this designed in? :headscratch:

Holmes,

Respectfully, The hardened belly was added to the C model onwards for DTs and bomb shackles, with the added benefit of being belly landing friendly~ as opposed to the P-51 which was a guaranteed disaster bellying in with its big air intake scoop.  The super turbocharger ducts ran along the inside of belly of the 47 which also gave it additional protection. If done well 47s that bellied in were repaired and put back into service rather quickly. And they were damn tough...

Offline Beefcake

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2011, 06:47:50 PM »
So let me get this straight, I'm limping my B17 home with it's landing gear shot out and as soon as I touch the runway it should burst into flames and explode?

Ummm....no....do not want. -1
Retired Bomber Dweeb - 71 "Eagle" Squadron RAF

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2011, 06:55:40 PM »
     It's been my experience that belly landing on a paved surface usually tears a plane up much less than landing
in the grass.  I've seen many gearup landings with both piston engines and jets.  Not one caught fire...that's over a
28 year career. 

     
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline Seadog36

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2011, 07:13:11 PM »
This pilot's 500lb deployed on takeoff, and detonated. He survived the blast in his P-47 :eek:

Offline Denholm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9667
      • No. 603 Squadron
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2011, 10:01:58 PM »
Contrary to the silly arguments that belly landings are completely safe, you have a great idea. I might even decide to post 20 you tube videos showing the real dangers of belly landings..... Nah, it doesnt take a genius to know that belly landing a combat aircraft is a huge gamble.

Did anyone check the fuel gauges of the planes in those videos? Did the combat aircraft in those films have any ords left, or rounds in the guns? Did they have battle damage that that compromised the strength of the aircraft in a critical spot or a golden BB strike that waits until the crews hopes are at the highest point thinking they are going to live until an explosion takes them at the last moment.

These things happened thousands of times during the war. They were not safe and rarely had the picture perfect conditions of a youtube video.

Your idea is well thought out. I like the idea of increasing probability of fire with more damage especially with fuel leak.

And as Grizz pointed out, we have no incentive whatsoever to fear for our lives or that of the aircraft which is extremely gamey. There is "a fine line between fun and war" and different games draw that line at different levels. I'd prefer a game thats harder and more realistic than 'Blazing Angels'

Muzik, the majority of this community isn't playing for realism. If they were, they wouldn't attempt Head-On passes or fire on Spitfires while flying P-51's. You're quite welcome to fly as realistically as you wish. Let others fly as they wish.

"To each their own."
Get your Daily Dose of Flame!
FlameThink.com
No. 603 Squadron... Visit us on the web, if you dare.

Drug addicts are always disappointed after eating Pot Pies.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2011, 10:15:11 PM »
Realistic or not, I think it's a good idea.  I am a habitual belly lander because there really is no incentive to land with your wheels.  If your plane burst into flames as result of a poor landing, I think it would help encourage a less 'gamey' way of landing quickly to save time. 

But I would guess it wouldn't deter you anymore then it would me as I could care less about points and I don't really die no matter what. 

The guys who are worried about points and score are going to land it right just to make sure they don't lose them.

Bottom line is it would be a waste of coding time :)
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline james

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2011, 10:15:48 PM »

Nevermind
6GUN  

4.0GHZ Ryzen9 3900x
32GB DDR4 3200
GTX1070

Offline muzik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: fire for belly landings
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2011, 11:14:51 PM »
Muzik, the majority of this community isn't playing for realism. If they were, they wouldn't attempt Head-On passes or fire on Spitfires while flying P-51's. You're quite welcome to fly as realistically as you wish. Let others fly as they wish.

"To each their own."

LOL  "wouldnt make HO passes"   If you have a degree in history, take it back and get a refund!   Nothing else you said make sense because 1-I didnt tell anyone how to fly, the subject is actually about LANDING! and 2-the case was not made for strict realism, (hitech doesnt believe in it) it was made for game play! Next time you might need someone to explain it to you.
Fear? You bet your life...but that all leaves you as you reach combat. Then there's a sense of great excitement, a thrill you can't duplicate anywhere...it's actually fun. Yes, I think it is the most exciting fun in the world. — Lt. Col. Robert B. "Westy" Westbrook, USAAF 6/<--lol@mod