TD please recheck G Limits of all aircraft in 4.10

[viff]

Somethings is fundamentally wrong here...

According to a quick test I just did:
(tested in QMB with full realism except for cockpit and speedbar, all aircraft with 50% fuel and default loadout, i.e. no bombs or rockets)


F6F-5 1944

In Service Design Load: 7.6G (G icon turns red @ 5.7G, exactly at 25% as stated in readme, @ 7.6G airframe starts to bend/rivets pop etc with damage sound exactly as stated in readme)
Ultimate Load: 11.4G (wing/tail etc shear off at 1.5 factor, exactly as stated in read me).


But its historical enemy:


A6M5b 1944

In Service Design Load: 9.0G (G icon turns red @ 6.8G, exactly at 25% as stated in readme, @ 9.0G airframe starts to bend/rivets pop etc with damage sound exactly as stated in readme)
Ultimate Load: 13.5G (wing/tail etc shear off at 1.5 factor, exactly as stated in read me).


Something is fundamentally wrong with the G Limits of these two aircraft, the A6M5b is way too strong and the F6F is way too weak... not living up to its name as the "Iron Works"...
Don't know about the Zero limits, but I am absolutely sure that F6Fs didn't take airframe stress damages during instantaneous maneuvers @ 7.6Gs, and willing to bet money that the Iron Works didn't fall apart @ 11.4Gs.

Please recheck G Limits of all aircraft.

ViFF

[Letum]

Think of it this way...

At 1G the A6M5 has an empty weight of about 1,700kg and the F6F5 an empty weight of 4,200kg.

At 7G the weight difference is amplified to 11,900kg vs 29,400kg.

A strong airframe can do a lot, but the F6F5 has 17.5 more tonnes to carry in a 7G turn than the zero.
That's a lot of extra weight for the wings to support.

[Ernst]

I guess this behaviour is because TD code consider basically aircraft weight and does not account particularities of the construction of each aircraft. I made some appointments about in another thread (LW vs REDS Topic). In principle i believe the g's must be quite the same because heavier a/c in general have more strong structures exactly to account this extra weight, and in part they are heavier due the strong structures that allow him to carry more loads and resist some g's.

I think it is difficult to account particularities of each aircraft since this depends of the existence of some reliable data about. This kind of info is not easy to find. All other way we ll simple guessing and prone to mistakes.

Envelope for P-51 Mustang: P-51 FLYING ENVELOPE
(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2950/p51d.jpg)

http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/p_51d_v_g_diagram_119.jpg

[Letum]

I guess this behaviour is because TD code consider basically aircraft weight and does not account particularities of the construction of each aircraft.

This is not the case. If airframe strength was not considered, the zero would
be able to take nearly 3x the G of the F6, based on it's weight.

The strength of the airframe has certainly been considered. Directly or indirectly.

[Ernst]

This is not the case. If airframe strength was not considered, the zero would
be able to take nearly 3x the G of the F6, based on it's weight.

The strength of the airframe has certainly been considered. Directly or indirectly.

Well, do not known. Only TD can answer. But i almost remenber they wrote that g limits were not especific for each design.

[FC99]

Somethings is fundamentally wrong here...
I'll disagree with "fundamentally" :grin:, errors and simplifications are possible on individual level but fundamentally G model is as good as it gets for an old game.



F6F-5 1944
A6M5b 1944

Something is fundamentally wrong with the G Limits of these two aircraft, the A6M5b is way too strong and the F6F is way too weak... not living up to its name as the "Iron Works"...
Don't know about the Zero limits, but I am absolutely sure that F6Fs didn't take airframe stress damages during instantaneous maneuvers @ 7.6Gs, and willing to bet money that the Iron Works didn't fall apart @ 11.4Gs.

Please recheck G Limits of all aircraft.

In general, most of fighter planes are using 8/12 G Limits. Small differences are possible due to weight of fuel and ammo.

Apart from global G Limits model there are individual parameters for each plane and it is possible to tweak each of them if you have RL references.

I don't have exact data for F6F but I have it for some other USA planes and current F6F G model is in a ballpark.

A6M were built with 7/12,6 Limits, I can check its current limits in game and tweak model if necessary although I don't think that this will make much difference in combat, considering high control forces which prevent hard maneuvering with Zero.

FC

[viff]

Hi FC,

Thanks for checking.

Regarding the F6F please take a look at the following RL reference:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930086199_1993086199.pdf

It is an analysis of V-g data obtained from several naval airplanes (the F6F among them) done in 1950 by the Langley Aeronautical Lab at Langley AFB.

On page 21 you will find the graph of the F6F, showing the typical design load factor of 8G (most common in US planes) but with data of occurances where the design loads were exceeded as part of normal operations, without any structural penalties, and the flight envelope enlarged due to expected perdictions of occurances up to 5,000 hours.

The conclusion of this analysis (page 7) was that since for these airplanes (F6F, F8F, etc) the design limit load factors of maneverable airplanes are exceeded in a relatively short period of time, the design ultimate load factor is a more appropriate level on which to base the safety of maneuverable airplanes rather then the limit load factor.

ViFF

[Ernst]

ViFF this link you posted appears to be very interesting but i can not access it from here. :(

[vparez]

ViFF this link you posted appears to be very interesting but i can not access it from here. :(

Right click and "save link as". Works fine.

[Ernst]

Yes but the page does not open. :( What is the title of the .pdf? I ll search it in NASA's site.

[Damixu]

Yes but the page does not open. :( What is the title of the .pdf? I ll search it in NASA's site.

Here's the filename: 19930086199_1993086199.pdf

and title of the document is:

NACA RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
Analysis of V-g Data Obtained from several naval airplanes
By James O. Thorton

[Ernst]

Here's the filename: 19930086199_1993086199.pdf

and title of the document is:

NACA RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
Analysis of V-g Data Obtained from several naval airplanes
By James O. Thorton

I see it. Very nice! If you find this kind of stuff about other aircraft keep it coming. Thanks!