Do airframes bend?
 

It was one of the most significant new features of RoF, and I was wondering if the guys at Maddox Games took into account that even full metal airframes flex and bend.

Wow, what a brilliant idea!! I wonder why I didn't think about it myself! Oh hang on, it's because, as I told you before, I have the game but can't run it cos I don't have a suitable rig.

Attention is not your forte Sherlock, uh? :rolleyes:

Its not in, and you dont need to run it to know this Sherlock, because if it were in they would have talked about such a cool feature, you can be sure they would let everyone know about it long before release.

In the future, try to be more nice when someone tries to help you :-P

excuse me, but who are you? Another of cheesehawk girlfriends or another of his phoney accounts? Such vehemence for a new forum member is a bit weird, especially cos I asked things politely and received one of his typical stupid answers.. as for your point, many features of the sim haven't been announced anyway, so take it easy tiger.. tsk, the amount of kids in this forum is unbelievable..

Thats a bit paranoid of you, the world does not revolve around you and your history with other posters, its not a responsability for new members to check every posters history with other posters to try to interpret posts in every way possible. At first glance it looked like you were being rude to someone who I thought was trying to help you. And now rude again. So the evidence so far judging from this thread points to you being a prick. I cant account for other threads and previous vendettas with others, sorry. Thats asking too much. Grow up.

Well I'm sorry but your judging skills are really poor if you can't see that cheesehawk was just being a dick. Still,you're getting in a conversation that is not addressed at you,admittedly without knowing about our history,so who's the prick now? You're doing great for just 4 posts,sheees..

~S~

I'am afraid to ask what time is it now...

Weirdest thread award candidate.

:evil:

Ok lets see what we have sofar: You are being very rude in general. Then you call me some other posters girlfriend. Yes you did this. Thanks, thats friendly of you and really proves you are serious :rolleyes:

You are accusing me of being the same as another posters "phoney accounts". Based on what?? What sick mind thinks like that anyway, that if someone posts something you dont like, its some hiding nemesis of yours out to get you. Seriously what did you base that on? Me telling you to be nice when someone tried to help you? Well it felt very welcoming, thanks for that one too... :rolleyes:

You call me a kid. I am not a kid, Im 38, so you were wrong again. And again, what did you base this failied assuption on?

You expect posters to know about your interactions with other posters to the point that we should analyse and evaluate posts between you and others and try to interpret if friendly suggestions can mean something hostile. OMG who has time for that? Maybe you do, you probably profile posters? That why you expect the same back? Well I dont care, its not normal behaviour, and you cant expect that back.

And you look down on me for having few posts? Is that important to you? I have many hundreds of posts, maybe even thousands, on other forums, but WHO CARES. How many posts is acceptable for you LOL, where do you draw the line? I think you spend too much time in this forum if post counts are important to you. Its just a number. AND how can a number be that important, but the fact that you just registered a couple of weeks before me NOT be as important. You failed to bring that up LOL

Get a life, you say you arent even using the software yet, well what the hell are you doing here then? Im here trying to give feedback on the patches. And you? Looks to me like you are just trolling. Get out.

DING! Ladies and gentlemen we have a winner, fighting in the blue corner, Aggro by a unanimous vote, wins by TKO.

Wow you talk about kids on the forum, do you reread your posts before posting, do you honestly think the rest of the posters on the banana forums know that you and cheesehawk are having a lovers tiff, much less even care.

Apart from that the initial advice was quite good and really what difference does it make if someone has only recently joined we all have to join sometime, it would appear that your 133 posts havent taught you anything about how to behave politely

Heinz Knoke took off to fight in a 109G with a bent frame once...I remember from his book.

This thread has seriously gone sideways.

Yep, there's a reason this is SJ "II" :rolleyes:

Il-2 1946 4.10 presumably has bent airframes now (I've never tried to pull destructive G, though), so CoD better has them as well! ^-^

Man.. what a porked thread this is..

Taking a screenie before and after is the only way you can see i guess...apart from the obvious and comparing performance charts from a before flight and an after flight...

Good luck with that one :rolleyes:

I'm ashamed for even reading this far but thought that, you know, a thread about airframes bending might have contained something about airframes bending! Should just do the test when I'm next flying although I suspect it will be difficult to determine any effect since you would need to get precisely the same camera angle before and after the high-G maneuver.

You see, there are some intelligent people in this forum thank God.. it is not easy to see an airframe flex or bend, that's why I was wondering if anybody managed to observe some behaviour or effects that could testify this. Airframe flexibility is a very important aspect, since aeroelasticity affects aerodynamic behaviour.

Aggro, I'm very sorry you got your knickers in a twist about this man, I dunno where you live, but where I come from, when you get in a new place you don't just butt in conversations like you do and start giving judgements.. I hope it's not true you're 38 man..

As for my banning, it happened because OTHERS posted inflammatory posts in my thread apparently, and I received a ban which never got fully explained anyways, so sorry to disappoint you fellas, but it wasn't my fault.


Now, back to the topic if you don't mind, if you have other tantrums about me you can always feel free to PM me, all I care for here honestly is the development of the sim towards the right direction.

Ok Sternjaeger, you have been banned already.. Well Im not surprised about that. But its surprising that you are still posting freely. I thought that was the point of bans, keeping the order. But I dont care anymore, there will be no more posts from me, because if banning didnt help (since you were banned and still posting) then whats the point with the rules at all? The message here is that he can troll, come back with a II in his name, everyone seems to know its the same guy, he admits it himself, keep trolling and irritate the hell out of readers. So he wins. Why should I stay here then? I wont. Its not worth my energy. And it will spare you the trouble of putting me on the list of posters who might create "phoney accounts" and attack you. I promise I wont! I wish you Good Luck and a high post count!

I did some tests two-three patches ago, trying to find if wings bending was present and we have the "aileron reversal" effect modelled ingame. My conclussions were that no bending is modelled, from a FM point of view. Graphically I dont know because I dont care too much.
This test was in a 109.

Not directly related, but to give an idea of the things included in the DM: I made some tests trying to see if the airframe degrades when you go beyond the maximum G allowed during manouver, and I found that you can reach 13 G without doing any damage to the aircraft. Sure, you can break a wing, but no progressive damage as it was modelled in 4.10 in 1946.
The aircraft used in this tests was a spitfire and I recorded a video if someone is interested.

BTW, is interesting to recall that before 4.10, IL2 had this exact behaviour, i.e., all aircraft had hardcoded a limit of 13 G. If you were beyond that, you will broke your wings. It was in 4.10 that progessive damage to the airframe, and different limits for each aircraft, or even the same aircraft with different loads, was modelled, as you can test reading the readme of 4.10

Another thing you can test yourselves, that you can do virtually whatever you want with the flaps extended and you wont see a single failure.

So, although we have a incredibly well detailed DM in some aspects, in other aspects someone forgot to do their homework, and for a trained eye this is not difficult to see that, beyond the eye candy.

Hopefully, in future versions of the game, we will have all this stuff, but I think we are far from it yet.

If this have been corrected in the last official patch or its hotfix, that is something I didnt test, so maybe I am wrong and I apologize in advance if that were the case.

Basically, I setup carefully a test place in FMB, putting marks every 50 and 100 m, and preplanned the manouver before the final test, which I recorded. Then analyzing afterwards in slow motion and in several angles, i have a enough precise estimation of the turn radius.

You can't possibly get to the point of aileron reversal. AR means that the wings twist so much from the force that they start to act like huge ailerons and start to roll in the opposite direction. But this occurs at only such high speeds, well above diving limits, that is not a concern. The Spitfire, which had a relatively low - compared to other fighters - calculated AR point of about 510 mph IAS iirc, at which airspeed it is supposed to roll in the opposite direction. The reason for that was the wing's structural design, which wasn't very stiff. But that wasn't that much a problem since the plane was limited at around 450 mph IAS in dives.. iow, you were beyond the safety limit when this happened.

But since AR is not a on/off function but sets in gradually, its a good indicator of how high speed (negatively) effects the rate of roll.

well apparently you can reach flutter speed in the Bf110, wonder if you can achieve it in other planes too.

You cannot get exact values, but you can tell if you are above certain G. For example, imagine you could put an imaginary semicircle of radius R and turn inside it. You are underestimating the G's if in the formula

a = V ^ 2 / r

You use r = R


So you cannot say your exact G, but you can tell if you were above some specific value or not.

The specific value in this case would be around 7G, as has been discussed in another thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16362), because this is the value at which one could say that a correct DM would start to model structural damaging of the plane ( a spitfire in this case) in normal load conditions. So basically my test was not : how many G can I pull? But, Can I pull more than 7G and have no damage? The aswer to this later question was, yes, it can be done and you wont notice damage in the aircraft (spitfire I state again). And more than that, I found that I could open the flaps at 400 mph pull more than 7G and no damage was present either.

You can make this tests and see, big radar towers are 200m height I estimate, and you can use and array of them and the grid in FMB to set references in place of that imaginary circle I was describing above.

But I feel that this, that was a side note in my post, maybe is hijacking the OP topic, so mabe is better to discuss it apart, I'd love to see other guys results. :)

Convinced for the spitfire, thank you very much for your explanation Kurfürst

An RAAF pilot John Haslope attached to 165 Squadron RAF. Bent his Mustang III when he shot down a Me 163 Komet on 10 April 1945. (Only non-US pilot to shoot one down)

He thought his plane was handling funny after he pulled out of the dive chasing the Komet and once on the ground they found out he had added an extra 5 degrees to the dihedral.

Cheers!

I'm not an expert, but is this the same thing that happens currently to the BF110 when you go beyond 500 kph. At 550 kph the plane is almost out of control with its twisting and drifting.

I guess the 110s case is a simulation of control surface flutter. Simply to put, the airflow over control surfaces gets turbulent, and it starts to vibrate and deflect the control surface increasingly wildly. Its a very dangerous situation, as this would vibrate the whole structure and sooner or later it will structurally fail and fall apart.

The odd thing about the 110 that this starts well below the official diving limits of the plane since the recent patches..

Thank you for your answer because I was really wondering. If I remember correctly, the label in the cockpit says something about 700kph.

they should really really do something to address this, airframe flexibility is a huge issue in aerodynamics..