Planes:Exploding, or Flamming?

[Hauksbee 103]

Seeing as WWI planes were mainly wood, doped canvas and fuel [Fokker fuselages aside] I would expect to see planes catching fire more often than I do. And it is rare in QC as I've played it. Wing spars shatter, planes come apart, [i'm ignoring planes that simply spiral down because the pilot's been shot.] but not much fire. Is this the way it was? Were flammers more the exception than the rule?

[Hauksbee 103]

You know . . . it's just about impossible to make everydody happy all the time. In Phase 1 'Flamers' were all too prevelant. By Phase II their presence was visably lessoned, yet still troublesome. Along comes Phase III, and there aren't enough flamers

 

 

Ah. Fortunes of war, then.

[+Polovski 460]

Put hard core DM on at least then the craft will stay flying long enough for you to flame ;)

Also aim for the engine area and fire from an angle not directly behind.

[Hauksbee 103]

Put hard core DM on at least then the craft will stay flying long enough for you to flame ;)

Also aim for the engine area and fire from an angle not directly behind.

 

Done. Thanks.

[Duce Lewis 3]

Put hard core DM on at least then the craft will stay flying long enough for you to flame ;)

Also aim for the engine area and fire from an angle not directly behind.

Pol,

 

I think you did a masterful job on the flame DM

I haven't had a flamer in a while

Mostly smokers that eventually lose control and auger in

 

But I sure remember a scrap about 2 weeks ago where I got 2 Camel flamers!

1st one burst into a fireball on the 1st burst, snap rolled & spun in

2nd one took more short bursts but eventually a fire lit on the starboard engine

I pulled off expecting a crash

He pulled out and it looked like he was actually attempted a landing

Didn't make it though and folded her up

 

Wow, just like RL!

I like that flamers are present but not too common ...more special tht way

 

Thanks for all your efforts

[cptroyce 0]

Re Flames- I think it was was Billy Bishop, one of the leading if not the leading Brit pilot..whose greatest fear was his plane catching fire and burning to death. I believe I read that he carried a revolver with him in the cockpit, in case his craft caught fire.

 

Withg that said, I would assume that planes catching fire was much more common then not, if a pilot of his standing had that much concern about it.

 

Royce

Edited April 14, 2009 by cptroyce

[Duce Lewis 3]

Withg that said, I would assume that planes catching fire was much more common then not, if a pilot of his standing had that much concern about it.

 

Royce

I disagree

The RFC had parachutes (at least later in the war) but didn't issue then for fear the crews would abandon flyable AC

If, on average, a pilot could only expect to last just 17 hours, then odds are that he'll meet his end as a lawn dart

If catching fire was more common than not, then fear of burning would be a paranoia throughout the RFC

They'd have demanded those parachutes at gun point

 

Burning alive was definately a threat and I'm sure it weighed on some pilots minds more than others

But if it were a constant occurance then I'm sure there would have been more attempts made to protect the pilots

 

My 2 cents,

[Fortiesboy 3]

Maybe a lot of you in UK saw the recent documentary programme about the two british Aces Mannock and McCudden.

It was certainly stated in there that their greatest fear was going down in flames and that they carried revolvers- it showed the revolvers on the screen

So, I think it fair to say that flamers were often enough an event, if such options ( shoot oneself) were used.

For some reason my system, as stated in other posts, does not show as much damage as others have, ( Explosions, flames, wings coming off ), so it may be the same for some others, including Hawksbee.

 

(I have modded the files so that I now do have these effects, BTW - see the 3rd party mods forum on how to do it)

 

The post which says that some folks are never satisfied because there were flamers in Phase1 and 2 and none in phase 3 is unfair. and misrepresented Hawksbees question

Those flamers in 1 and 2 were situations where the plane caught fire and then flew around for a long time as if it wasn't on fire.

Hawksbee was quite rightly asking why there were such low incidences of flamers where the plane caught fire and/or exploded, and then went in.

[Gous 0]

Normal DM is the most accurate from my point of view. You get flamers only with careful shots at the engine area. Flamers were not that usual you know...From Bishop's 72 victories only a few were flamers.

[Fortiesboy 3]

Flamers were not that usual you know...

 

The bottom line is..................if you were in this air war- "Would you have carried a gun ?" :wink:

[Gous 0]

The bottom line is..................if you were in this air war- "Would you have carried a gun ?"

Guns are no fun...on the other hand, jumping from 10000 feet is much more fun...!

[Ras 0]

You know . . . it's just about impossible to make everydody happy all the time. In Phase 1 'Flamers' were all too prevelant. By Phase II their presence was visably lessoned, yet still troublesome. Along comes Phase III, and there aren't enough flamers

 

 

I think he was just asking a question and not complaining

[Creaghorn 10]

ironically there was a conversation among lufbery and his pilots, wether to jump to death or staying inside, in the case the aircraft caught fire. and lufbery told vehemently to stay inside. if one jumps, his death is certain. if one stays inside, one can try to fan the fire off the face with sideslipping or similar moves. only couple days later lufbery's aircraft got hit by a german two seater gunner and caught fire. he jumped to death. researches say he obviously tried to hit a small pond when he jumped. he missed it and instead got impaled by a picked fence at a farmhouse.

[Luiz Carlos 0]

Normal DM is the most accurate from my point of view. You get flamers only with careful shots at the engine area. Flamers were not that usual you know...From Bishop's 72 victories only a few were flamers.

I revert to normal DM, too, after reading a lot of combat reports and seeing Eddie Rickenbacker´s episode in "Dogfights" I realize that probably was much more easier to down a plane that in Hardcore.

I was a Lieutenant in the Brazilian army , (doctor) and I was able to fire a MAC field machine gun once(7,62 mm french build)

Well ,that does A LOT of destruction in my point of view.I imagine what it could have done in a wood and canvas full of gas airplane.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Luiz Carlos

[Luiz Carlos 0]

Pol,

 

I think you did a masterful job on the flame DM

I haven't had a flamer in a while

Mostly smokers that eventually lose control and auger in

 

But I sure remember a scrap about 2 weeks ago where I got 2 Camel flamers!

1st one burst into a fireball on the 1st burst, snap rolled & spun in

2nd one took more short bursts but eventually a fire lit on the starboard engine

I pulled off expecting a crash

He pulled out and it looked like he was actually attempted a landing

Didn't make it though and folded her up

 

Wow, just like RL!

I like that flamers are present but not too common ...more special tht way

 

Thanks for all your efforts

Yes, I put an Eindecker down once that plummet slowly to the ground.I was after him, just having the sweet taste of victory,waiting for the right spot of crash to fill my claim form.It ignites a flame, only seconds before impacting .It really looks like real life, indeed.

Cheers to all devs efforts, here too!

Edited April 15, 2009 by Luiz Carlos

[Creaghorn 10]

Normal DM is the most accurate from my point of view. You get flamers only with careful shots at the engine area. Flamers were not that usual you know...From Bishop's 72 victories only a few were flamers.

 

IMHO from bishop's 72 victories only a few were kills at all .

too many downed scouts, (primary target always have been two seaters), too many multiple kills, too many kills with no witnesses for my taste, too many doubters among his own pilots. but that's my opinion. who really knows?

actually, if he would have to make claims like in BHAH, he would end up with 3 kills .

[Duce Lewis 3]

The parachute was available to the guy in the observation balloon, but he wasn't concerned about space to keep it. It was frankly too big and bulky for use by a small aircraft.

 

Later in the war some of the German 2 seaters carried them in a canvas ripable seamed bag strapped to the bottom of the fusilage

 

There simply was no room for them in a scout class plane, certainly no room in the cockpit for one, and that bulky bag strapped to your undersides couldn't have boosted your top speed.

 

Whenever I'd burn myself with the stove, my Mother would say "You'd better be good"

 

As a welder I learned the need for thick gloves

 

If I had a choice between jumping to my Death, Burning to Death, or Eating a bullet. I'd carry a pistol.

 

The neat backpack parachute didn't become available until about 1919

Gimp,

 

Here's Wikipidia's blurb on the development of the parachute in the RFC

It carries many of the points we both made

 

Parachutes

In 1915 inventor Everard Calthrop offered the RFC his patented parachute. On 13 January 1917, Captain Clive Collett, a New Zealander, made the first British military parachute jump from a heavier-than-air craft. The jump, from 600 feet, was successful but the higher authorities in the RFC and the Air Board were opposed to the issuing of parachutes to pilots. It was felt at the time that a parachute might tempt a pilot to abandon his aircraft in an emergency rather than continuing the fight. The parachutes of the time were also heavy and cumbersome, and the added weight was frowned upon by experienced pilots as it adversely affected aircraft with already marginal performance. It was not until 16 September 1918 that the order was issued for all single seater aircraft to be fitted with parachutes.

 

I'm sure that after 90 years we could find many conflicting sources as to what precisely happened

The main point I was trying to make was that if flaming deaths were very common, much more efforts would made to speed the development of the chutes

 

As we can see, the RFC was much more concerned about pilots abandoning flyable crates than them dying in flamers

Since a flamers destroys the AC and pilot anyways, denying the chutes would make no sense if they were losing a substantial number of trained pilots this way

 

Cheers,

 

btw Unc, did that set-up help any?

[Duce Lewis 3]

So on Sept 16, 1918 with the war drawing to close Home Office issued the order that all scout aircraft are to be fitted with parachutes reguardless of detrimental effects on overall speed or manuverability. Secure in the knowlege that by the time all the red tape had been cut the war would probably be over

 

Sounds to me like a little political arse covering

 

Because aside from making sure the pilot stayed with his plane, in January 1917 the ultimate outcome of the War itself was still in doubt. Under those conditions Home Office would Never issue an order that would detract from the overall performance of one of their prized weapons

 

Flamers or No Flamers. It's not important

I'm not buying the political angle

These are the same politicians that funded the development of the tank from a lumbering, multi-gun box to the turreted configuration that we still use to this day

The airplane evolved from a unarmed flexwing contraptions to highly manueverable, oxygen equipped fighters and multi-engine bombers that could reach far behind enemy lines

In fact, wartime is typically a time of excelerated technical advancement

 

I find it hard to believe that the lowly parachute was beyond their capabilities

It's basically silk, weaving, and stitching ..technologies knwon for 100's if not 1000's of years

What had to be done, a new folding technique? ...thinner, stronger weaves?

Hardly awe inspiring developments

 

I prefer a much simpler explanation

You put your devlopment money and resources where they're most needed

They felt that pilots could deadstick damaged crates down so parachutes weren't top priority

Many German pilots felt the same way as they refused to use them

This leads to the conclusion that the much feared flaming death was not the most common

 

Cheers,

[Siggi 10]

I'm not buying the political angle

These are the same politicians that funded the development of the tank from a lumbering, multi-gun box to the turreted configuration that we still use to this day

The airplane evolved from a unarmed flexwing contraptions to highly manueverable, oxygen equipped fighters and multi-engine bombers that could reach far behind enemy lines

In fact, wartime is typically a time of excelerated technical advancement

 

I find it hard to believe that the lowly parachute was beyond their capabilities

It's basically silk, weaving, and stitching ..technologies knwon for 100's if not 1000's of years

What had to be done, a new folding technique? ...thinner, stronger weaves?

Hardly awe inspiring developments

 

I prefer a much simpler explanation

You put your devlopment money and resources where they're most needed

They felt that pilots could deadstick damaged crates down so parachutes weren't top priority

Many German pilots felt the same way as they refused to use them

This leads to the conclusion that the much feared flaming death was not the most common

 

Cheers,

 

According to the book I've just finished reading (On a Wing and a Prayer) the biggest fear of most pilots was going down in flames. The refusal of the authorities to issue parachutes was roundly despised and criticized by crews. 500 were actually provided, but just too late to be issued to crew before the war ended.

[Duce Lewis 3]

Hardly a politician was involved with this schitte

It was instead high ranking military men who knew that schitte rolls down hill, and they were at the bottom of that hill.

 

Money is appropriated for the development of a weapons system when it's asked for by the military itself

Nothing comes between a politician and their control of the money!

Generals may ask but it's the politicos that make the final decisions

Do you think the Generals are asking Obama to cancel the F22?

That takes a politician with an agenda different from the 1 that ordered it

Some of these fools don't even know what they're voting for ...but as long as it's going to their cronies

 

Look, we're getting way off topic here

It could easily have been done

It probbly should have been done

But my point has always been, if flamers had been killing off pilots left and right, it definately would have been given a much higher priority than it was

 

Nuff Said

[Duce Lewis 3]

You can't site the Obama administration as the way things normally run, there's a first time for everything, and if this was his second term, you'd see a hell of a lot more changes than the cancellation of the F-22.

History says otherwise:

Kennedy's wizkids gave us the F111, the plane that was supposed to do everything and ended not much good at anything

Carter cancelled everything including training funds, and our boys suffered for it when hey tried to save the hostages

Reagan funded everything including his pet project ,Star Wars Missle Defense, that drank up money

Clinton was a defense cutter but sorry, I can't remember exactly where

Only difference between Obama and the rest is that his party has firm control of both houses

Obama's cuts will therefore be much deeper ...at least for the 1st 2 years

 

...the powers then, would Never issue an order, that if implamented, would degrade the performance of one of their weapons

Finally something we can agree on

Any wartime leader worth his salt will weigh the odds of success/failure of any new system

They'd compare the risk of performance decrease of the added weigh vs the lives of trained pilots saved

If their Air Service was burning up before their eyes (planes and pilots) they certainly would have given the chute top priority

[Fortiesboy 3]

But my point has always been, if flamers had been killing off pilots left and right, it definately would have been given a much higher priority than it was

 

Nuff Said

 

Duce- Nobody is saying that fire killed more pilots than anything else- We all know it was gravity :yes:

 

But it was such a nasty way of dying, and it was not a rare thing, that a lot of chaps carried a gun just in case the flamer happened to them.

And I think it fair to say that fire happened more in RL than in OFF-( except in my mods -lol )

 

A bit more said !

[Duce Lewis 3]

Duce- Nobody is saying that fire killed more pilots than anything else- We all know it was gravity :yes:

 

But it was such a nasty way of dying, and it was not a rare thing, that a lot of chaps carried a gun just in case the flamer happened to them.

And I think it fair to say that fire happened more in RL than in OFF-( except in my mods -lol )

 

A bit more said !

40's

I agree wholeheartedly ...have from the beginning

In Post #23 I concluded it wasn't the most common way to die

 

Don't know about the actual percentage vs OFF

You'd need to look up the stats for that ...if they exist

 

Cheers,