SM.79 porked (or forgotten) damage model - Page 3

Voyager · #21 10-06-2009, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tipo_Man

So what?
Do I need to repeat my contest setup again?
Take a fighter, which is a historical opponent for that plane - 1936.
I-16 type 5(6) - which it fought in Spain.
Gladiator - fought in Africa
Fokker - what-if
B-534 - what-if
or some other early war, non-cannon armed fighter. In fact 20mm cannons in all countries (except France) appeared after 1940...

And please, I've no responsibility if you brake your joystick in anger

The I-16 lost to it in Spain. The Gladiator couldn't do anything to it in the MTO. Even the Fairey Fulmar did do much to stop it.

It operated with impunity until Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Wildcats showed up.

The was a period in the 1930's where bombers were so far outperforming fighters that it was believed that the day of the fighter was over, and that all airwars would be fought by who could drop bombs the fastest. Planes like the SM.79, and theirgeneraly resilience against the slow poorly armed fighters of the '30's are a very large reason why everyone was using 20mm cannon or heavy machine guns by 1938.

Harry Voyager

Addendum: I suspect part of what makes the SM.79 so painful is that it's guns are using 12.7mm rounds, rather than the 7.9mm most Axis bombers use. You're getting hit by 3-4 times the firepower that an He-111 can put out, and at least twice what the Ju-88 can manage.

150GCT_Diego · #22 10-06-2009, 08:44 AM

For Caprera.

"The fuselage of the SM.79 was made of a welded tubular steel frame and covered with duralumin in the forward section, duralumin and plywood on the upper fuselage surface, and fabric on all other surfaces"

That means that, if a shot didn't hit the steel frame, it won't cause excessive damage because:
- The tubular steel frame with fabric means that the surface isn't "working" to support the stress, and so, the facbric it's there just to give lift or for aerodinamic reason, not for structural integrity.
That's because the fabric, that resist to elongation, can't resist to compression.
So, a hole in the fabric it's just a loss in lift ( or an increase in drag, if it's on the fuselage ), NOT in structural integrity.
- The tubular steel frame with duraluminium it's more vulnerable, because the duraluminium is a working part of the fuselage ( semi monocoque fuselage, in these case ), but, again, it's the steel frame that support the "real" stress, the duraluminium just help ( even tought these help it's extremely important ).
- Same thing for the duraluminium and plywood, as before, but the plywood it's obviously less resistent to stress.

Simply, if the "cover" of the wing it's made of rigid material, it can withstand a lot of stress, because the spar, the skin and the ribs ( not sure abput these traslation, in tialian it's "centine" ) work togedet to create a closed box.
And a closed box can withstand a lot of stress more than an open box, or weight a lot less with a similar resistence.

"The wings were of all-wood construction, with the trailing edge flaps and leading edge slats (Handley-Page type) to offset its relatively small size. The internal structure was made of three spars, linked with cantilevers and a skin of plywood."

In addition, the wing of SM79 has three main spar, while normally aircraft has only two main spar, or even only one.
Having three main spar means that there isn't only one "wing box", but two, with the leading edge and the trailing edge as separate structure that can withstand torque.
That means that the wing of SM79 was extrmely strong for different reason:
- Because of the three spar arrangement.
- Because of the working skin of plywood ( the less resistent it's the skin, and the less important it is in structural integrity if it's lost).
- Because of the eavy armour carried for the engine and the fuel tanks.

So you have to hit ( and hit hard ) at least two main spar to create some serious damage, and not only the skin ( qute like the ww1 plane ... ).

These kind of structure with three main spar, was used only in italy, and only by the "Marchetti" industries.

Again, i'm sorry for my english. If something it's not clear, feel free to ask for explanation.

Lucas_From_Hell · #23 10-06-2009, 08:57 AM

Well, I've just recorded 3 tracks of me shooting down the S.M.79 in a single pass, all with the Hurricane (one with Mk.IIa, other with Mk.I).

And I've killed crewmembers, pilots, flamed engines, stopped them... If you want, I can put these on youtube...

But about the gunner, well... There's that tiny slow biplane, the S-328, that's giving me creeps. It just can't miss! I do B&Z on it with a P-51 and it (surprisingly) hits me AFTER the pass, when I'm already high and climbing, and in front of it. It does it in every single skill level. I was a little bit shocked after my P-40 was holed to death by a rookie-skilled biplane. I dive, shoot, set some holes on it, and when I'm climbing for the next one, he threshed my radiator, holed my fuel-tanks, destroyed my wing and jammed some guns. Next pass: same result.

I tested it lots of times, all with the same result. I can't fly near it anymore, I'm too scared...

mkubani · #24 10-06-2009, 09:27 AM

Thank you guys for providing an evidence that it is possible to shoot down SM.79 with machine guns even though it is a difficult task. We appreciate it.

Lucas, yes please put it on youtube, so we can also show to other forums if people have similar claims against SM.79.

As for Letov, yes it is very deadly. I have even put it as a remark in the 4.09 PDF Guide. It's due to high (historical) rate of fire of the MGs + their flexible mount which covers most of the rear, side and even part of the upper front of the plane. Personally, I found the past tactic to use against Letov either by killing the gunner from 6 o'clock from far distance (with a plane with MGs and good convergency) first or doing head on passes from 12 o'clock high with a plane with canons. It's a slow plane, so it's not too difficult to get to the good firing position in a fighter.

Since we did not change the accurate AI gunners from 4.08, Letov became a deadly opponent. It is an area we plan to take a much closer and detail look in the future. That's why we have released Letov with this limitation for now.

Azimech · #25 10-06-2009, 11:14 AM

I have no problem destroying a SM79 with a nice frontal or semi-frontal attack with pre war planes. The engines are quite vulnerable and catch fire easily, besides the front is not defended. Only the tediousness of flying past and making another pass is a bit annoying with the slow pre-war birds.

But yes, it's a flying tank. Nice test I used in QMB: put 16 Ace I16's against the SM79 and after that the HE111. Big difference in time, the crew in the HE111 gets slaughtered while every crewmember in the SM79 seems to have Borg-like nanoprobe armor!

Lucas_From_Hell · #26 10-06-2009, 04:56 PM

As requested, here it is: the tracks of machine-gun armed 1940 (and pre-1940) aircraft shooting down the mighty S.M.79, compiled on a tutorial:

"S.M.79 killing for dummies"

I hope it help you guys beating this undestructable flying tank.