Smoke from shot-down warbirds

[Nealius]

I've been flying the Spitfire a lot recently and one of my biggest frustrations is the total lack of smoke from warbirds that have been shot down. Here's a frequent scenario:

 

I've tallied a bandit a couple thousand feet off my nose, maneuvering in closer for a kill. Suddenly another bandit passes by my canopy about 150ft away. I disengage the far bandit and engage the higher threat closer to me, only to later realize that "threat" was just ballistic after getting shot down. The lack of visible indication that he was dead caused me to lose a potential kill on an actual threat.

 

If there were smoke trails like in all the jets this wouldn't be happening.

[grafspee]

Wait for New DM

[DD_Fenrir]

Smoke requires something to be combusting, and a PK doesn't tend to result in much catching fire... unless the dead pilot had a penchant for large quantities of brandy...

[Nealius]

100% of kills shouldn't result in a PK. And PK doesn't result in the engine suddenly stopping either...

 

Smoke could also be from an oil or fuel leak. Say a wing gets taken off. That's going to leave a trail of white mist as it falls.

 

Wait for New DM

 

Guess I'll put all the warbird campaigns on hold for *checks watch* two years.

Edited September 21, 2019 by Nealius

[DD_Fenrir]

100% of kills shouldn't result in a PK. And PK doesn't result in the engine suddenly stopping either...

 

Can't argue with that. My point was however that neither should 100% of kills result in smoke/fluid emissions.

 

Smoke could also be from an oil or fuel leak.

 

Sure - if an oil/fuel/coolant tank/pipe/reservoir is calculated to have been hit/damaged. But a catastrophic failure resulting in an aircraft crashing does not necessarily require these.

 

Say a wing gets taken off. That's going to leave a trail of white mist as it falls.

 

Is it? I would argue that it depends on the airframe and where the wing gets blown off.

 

For example the Fw-190 - if the wing fails at the root, there are no coolant routes or fuel tanks in the wings to generate the any fluid vapour.

 

The same wouldn't be true for the Spitfire or 109, the coolant rads being in the wings. Still no fuel however. If the failure occurred midway down the wing and therefore outside of the coolant circuit then vapour would be inappropriate.

 

The Pony is different again. No coolant circuit to the wings at all but there are fuel cells in the wing root, but again, if the wing fails outside of the fuel tank, should there still be vapour?

 

Period guncam footage shows plenty of catastrophic structural failure without any sustained fluid loss or combustion. It also shows significant coolant leaks for those inline engine types and less flamers and smoke than might be expected.

[philstyle]

I've been flying the Spitfire a lot recently and one of my biggest frustrations is the total lack of smoke from warbirds that have been shot down.

 

 

Odd, I regularly see somke and vapour trails from damaged aircraft.

Furthermore, it's usually pretty obvious when a severely damaged aircraft is not flying, even when it isn'tt trailing vapour or smoke.

 

 

 

I have no problem at all with confusion and lack of information about the combat area. There are historical reports of aircraft flying along in what looks like a controlled descent with a dead pilot at the controls.

[grafspee]

Answer to it is very simple.

Oil or coolant or fuel will stop making smoke after those will vent out at some point.