Aircraft Armor

[pmulcahy11b]

Is it just me, or should the aircraft armor ratings be re-established?

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Is it just me, or should the aircraft armor ratings be re-established?

Yes. Most military aircraft are described as having ballistic resistance but no such AV are listed in the Nautical/Aviation handbook. I would have to defer to my Airforce brethren about the actual resistance of various aircraft but I have some experience with a few types. For example;

I know from reference books that the A10 has a titanium "bathtub" that protects the pilot and that the rest of the aircraft is "reinforced against up to .50 caliber AP rounds." A pilot of one training at Ft Drum told me this is true (even the cockpit windscreen). That means that the "bathtub" should offer protection against 30mm rounds (per Modern Air Combat) at AV16. and at least AV9 (.50 cal damage from a Berret M82) everywhere else.

The Apache is supposedly protected against 20mm rounds everywhere but the rotors. This would be an AV10.

The Blackhawk is supposed to be resistant to .30 Caliber rounds (an AV of 4)

The CH47's we used in Africa had a NIJ Level 3A upgrade kit consisting of soft panels in the cargo compartment (an AV of 1, if you consider that PASGT is also NIJ Level 3A). I don't know if the crew were protected though.

The armor values in Twilight are kind of messed up. I do know that an NCO who served in Vietnam told us after watching a demonstration of Ranger Body armor with the Aluminum Oxide plates defeat a .30 Cal round; that Ranger armor (which would have an AV4 in game) protected better than an M113's armor did. Technology at work, I guess.

[Olefin]

I am not sure the game designers knew much about aircraft - as has been stated the armor values are definitely wrong. For another they keep mentioning aviation gas for planes - but modern jets don't use aviation gas.

Sure if you are using propeller planes or old WWII planes then you need avgas - i.e. if you are reduced to using armed Cessna 172's for instance

but jet planes need jet fuel - which is a completely different fuel - the US would have switched completely over to JP-8 by the war start - and since that is the fuel they also use for the Army if there are any refineries still working you would figured that MilGov would have them making JP-8 if they are making fuel - not avgas for sure

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I am not sure the game designers knew much about aircraft - as has been stated the armor values are definitely wrong. For another they keep mentioning aviation gas for planes - but modern jets don't use aviation gas.

Sure if you are using propeller planes or old WWII planes then you need avgas - i.e. if you are reduced to using armed Cessna 172's for instance

but jet planes need jet fuel - which is a completely different fuel - the US would have switched completely over to JP-8 by the war start - and since that is the fuel they also use for the Army if there are any refineries still working you would figured that MilGov would have them making JP-8 if they are making fuel - not avgas for sure

When I joined the Army, in the early 1990's we were still using DF-2 as it is the preferred fuel for the Tanks, it was not tell late 90's (99 I think) that the AF forced us to switch to JP-8. For us the biggest issue was we can no longer us the on board smoke generator as it would start on fire with the JP-8.

[Draq]

I worked at DFW airport fueling planes for a little bit, a few years ago. I too noticed the fuel error. Interestingly, when fueling planes, you have to convert from gallons to pounds, modified by the fuel temperature, since fuel is less dense the warmer it gets. And be sure to balance the wings or there will be big problems. I do miss fueling those old MD-80s for $10.40/hr. But the 767 and Airbuses, and having to do four people's work due to greatly reduced staff for 12 hr a day, wasn't so fun.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by CDAT

When I joined the Army, in the early 1990's we were still using DF-2 as it is the preferred fuel for the Tanks, it was not tell late 90's (99 I think) that the AF forced us to switch to JP-8. For us the biggest issue was we can no longer us the on board smoke generator as it would start on fire with the JP-8.

they went to the JP-8 to save money by only buying one kind of fuel - and could see that happening even earlier with the war start - i.e. shipping is at a premium so conversion to one fuel standard would happen even earlier

[Sanjuro]

The whole thing about alcohol-based fuels not having enough specific energy capacity to power an aircraft is also dubious, to say the least. Even by the early 90s a piston-engine aeroplane had flown the Atlantic on alcohol fuel, and the rule of thumb for jets (including turboprops) is if it's runny and it burns, you can power a jet engine with it.
The problem, so far, with alcohol-based fuels is their low boiling points- unless you fit pressurised fuel systems, which will add a lot of weight and complexity, at high altitudes your fuel will boil away. Lower temperatures will not help, as the ethanol/methanol will boil much more readily with decrease of air pressure.