Hi, will the multi crew option also make it possible for players to join an other player in a single seat aircraft?
(with the joining player only being able to view)

Yes, but you are comparing the P-51 to the Mosquito. I Asked for "evidence that the DH Mosquito was designed to lower G-loading standards than similar metal-construction aircraft". I don't see how a single seater fighter can be 'similar" to a twin engined bomber/night fighter in this context.

I can't see any stated G-load limitations in the Mosquito document anyway, so this doesn't really help.

May you have to post a P-38 or ME-110 manual to solve the match. I think P-38 "twin tailed devil" it is a superb twin engine fighter, and i guess it is mainly metal construction. I guess that it would not fly as it flied if it was mainly wood construction.

Take a P-38 Manual and post here guys. I did not read it before, take a look friends:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...ges-20445.html

What makes you think using wood results in lower performance? Why do you think its worse? FW190, late Bf109s as well as most Russian aircraft, including IL-2s, had wood in them. So did the Mosquito. Ta-154, He-162, La-7, anyone?

If an aircraft can tolerate 8G then it can tolerate the 8G no matter what its constructed of.

Also if a wooden construction is slightly overstressed it bends and gets back to its original form.
A metal structure, connected by rivets, starts to bend and by that the rivets become a bit more loose.
That weakens the construction quite a bit! A metal construction doesn't forget stresses!

more knowledge than the aircraft engineers that made these things?

Ernst, I can see no point in even attempting to correct your misunderstanding of what is under discussion here. If you want to contribute anything useful, I suggest you study a little about the subject first, rather than making ridiculous claims based on balsa-wood and the carbon content of aluminium alloys.

As far as I'm concerned, unless somone can come up with meaningful comparative G-load figures, the topic is closed.

I really, really like the personal plane lists idea! I really only fly a small subset of planes, and most of them are far down the list (i.e. Hurricane Mk.I). This is going to make my life a lot simpler!

http://faa-engineers.com/~mjgundry/b...alculation.pdf
"V Speed Determination for RW-11" The RW-11 seems to be an "Easy to build replica of the [Piper] Vagabond." What has this got to do with anything? No mention of G limits anyway.

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat...t_23-appA.html
Modern FAA regulations for a particular class of light aircraft - no mention of materials used - irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

Posting random off-topic articles is no way to settle anything. I'm going to ignore any further comments/links from you, unless someone else thinks they are worth considering.

doubtful. i know near bugger all about that kind of stuff, and his posts read like nonsense.