Yes. But with no data then in principle Focke Wulf and Spitfire must resist the same G loading. Here we have a ~1.3G difference. I can guess the answer: The TD stated that the g loading do not reflect the particularities of each aircraft, except weight. Since Focke Wulf is heavier maybe in the TD code it must to resist less.

However maybe in real life it was more well built, exactly because it was heavier. And in part maybe its heaviness is exactly because this allowed the 190 to carry more weight and resist the g-forces yet. Since the TD could not consider the differences in construction of the aircraft it uses a simple matter of weight that not defines well the problem. However since they are incapable to simulate the construction particularities the heavier aircrafts has serious disadvantages.

However if this is true the 109 must endure better in the TD code, since it was lighter than spitfire. I do not tested the 109 yet. But if we test it and verify it is worse tha Spit, then there is something very odd.:cool:

Actually, i really love that exploded deflection shots while "ubers" trying to classic turn baby turn style high G flight. Thanks TD... :cool:

It seems like you're right. With various contemporary models of Spit and Fw 190 I found about a 0.5-1G advantage to the Spitfire (about, of course, it's hard to gauge, but holding for example the Spit LF IXc 25lbs at 8-8.5 Gs didn't tend to overstress over a period of just a few seconds where 8.5+ Gs did, while the Fw 190 A-9 overstressed at 8-8.5 Gs every time over similar periods of just a few seconds (2-3s) at these Gs. The Spit can hit higher Gs more easily accidentally with its lighter elevator, and regardless of this the Spit will eventually hear the overstress sound if 8+ Gs is held long enough. It's very hard to gauge, though, since these maneuvers must be very short and unsustainable by nature, and the sensitivity of the Spit's elevator makes it hard to hold a particular G loading. I was testing by diving to 650kph TAS from 5000m and pulling out.

Things like combat experience and the environment count at least as much as technical considerations.

The Spitfire was far to effete and pretty to take the same G as planes with more machismo.

This needs to be taken into account :D

IMO the G effect is more against the Red planes than the Blue ones. Overall against Spitfires since you must be careful after the BnZ with those planes (because BnZ is not a Blue tactic, it's THE tactic).

And of course if you are damaged you can't turn hard anymore, a thing that usually average blue fighters don't do.

Anyway, in full onesty I want to respond to those who claim that Axis FM are ok since the blue pilots' online scores you: it's not the plane, it's the pilots... blue pilot must use tactics and be very skilled (trained) to be successful, while usually in red planes (not PTO) you don't need to use great tactics to score some kills... because of these IMO the average blue pilot is more skilled than a red pilot; I can say it because in many times I've fled as Red (I fly both sides to balance the mission) usually I don't find cooperation with Red pilots (pilots of my squad are witnesses too).

You know, "every idiot can fly a Spitfire"... :-)

The times you use correct tactics and cooperate with your teammates (example 3 spits at 5km against multiple Antons) you win easily. And think about multiple P51 or P47 at high altitude, it's the nightmare of blue pilots... still today I find very few red pilot flying with correct tactics...

And at last all the 190s and partially the 109s in the stock IL2 are REALLY weird respect to the most of the other planes who are quite correct (the new Spitfire for example...). PM me if you want the reasons...

I have to admit that the P51's improvement really pisses me off... because P51 were used by pilots in the 190's way (but P51 being still better in everything except for the guns)... we tested now and they are improved, while 190s are still the flying bricks.

I make some researchs:

http://il2.mega.kg/forum/index.php?showtopic=840

About FW 190

Во-вторых, конструкция FW190 была гораздо более прочной, чем у его конкурента: коэффициент запаса прочности, заложенный в конструкцию планера, был 1.2 против 1.02 у Bf109. Это позволяло самолету безболезненно переносить гораздо более серьезные боевые повреждения, чем Bf109. Немаловажным фактором в обеспечении живучести, а также увеличения угловой скорости входа в вираж, было расположение всех топливных баков исключительно в фюзеляже, что, с одной стороны, уменьшало их поражаемую площадь, а с другой, снижало момент инерции самолета при маневрах по крену.

прочность конструкции самолета иллюстрирует следующий эпизод: в период переподготовки с мессершмитта-109 на фокке-вульф, опытный летчик, ранее летавший в авиакомпании "люфтганза", проявил необъяснимое мальчишество и решил поднять самолет на практический потолок. в результате самолет свалился в вертикальное пикирование с большой высоты с мотором, работающим на полную мощность. скорость быстро приблизилась к критической отметке - более 800 км/ч. приложив все свои силы, летчик сумел выдернуть истребитель из пике и перейти в горизонтальный полет. после возвращения на аэродром самолет оказался в полной исправности: ни деформаций силовых элементов или панелей обшивки, ни выпавших заклепок!


Translated:

In the second place, construction FW190 was much more durable, than in its competitor: the safety factor, placed in the construction of glider, was 1.2 against 1.02 in Bf109. This made possible for aircraft to painlessly transfer much more serious battle damages than Bf109. Important factor in the guarantee of vitality, and also increase in the angular entry speed into the turn, was the arrangement of all fuel tanks exclusively in the fuselage, which, from one side, decreased their beaten area, and with another, was reduced the moment of the inertia of aircraft while maneuverings along the bank.


The structural strength of aircraft illustrates the following episode: in the period of retraining from the Messerschmitt -109 to the Focke-Wulfe, experienced pilot, previously flown in the airline " [Lyuftganza]" , appeared inexplicable boyishness and decided to raise aircraft to the service ceiling. As a result aircraft fell down into the vertical dive from a high altitude with the motor, which works at full power. Speed rapidly approached the critical mark - more than 800 km/h. After exerting all his forces, pilot knew how to pull out fighter from peak and to pass into the level flight.
After return to the airfield the aircraft proved to be in complete proper working order: neither deformations of load-bearing elements or panels of skin nor fallen rivets!


:grin:

-And the fact that Allied pilots where on rotation much more often.

Indeed. And many of them went to training units to pass their experience. AFAIK only few experienced LW pilots went to command training units, like Herman Graf.

I tested more two aircraft. The rough P-47 made the "crank" at ~9.0G. Since i am doing the experiments there is some room of error, maybe in future someone ll can do some autopilot tests and compare this kind of info.

I tested the 109 but cannot pull more than ~7.0G. The elevator is so heavy at high speeds that is impossible to go beyond the sevice G, maybe this is an advantage because the pilot can pull back back the stick with no worry. I did not used the trim in 109 to "cheat" the turn.

I overstressed the aircrafts i tested quite a lot but not passed 10Gs. I did not observed any structural damage or penalty except that weird sound. How much must i overstress my plane to have problems? What kind of problems? This is a question to TD guys.

p.s.: if somenone break the 109 by Gs deserves be proclamed a Saint. Because is a miracle.