Originally Posted by SaQSoN
To stop this pointless discussion about wood vs metal:
For any mechanical engineer it is absolutely obvious, that if an object is properly designed to withstand a certain load, it will withstand it, no matter which material it was designed and built from - wood, steel, aluminum or even $hit. Offcourse, each material has it's limits and for certain tasks some of them aren't applicable at all. Like, you can build a plane from wood or metal, but you can not build it from a $hit, though you can build, say, a house from any of the listed materials.
So, the final point is, if, for instance, we have two wing spars, one of them was designed and built from wood and the other one - from a metal and both are supposed to withstand 8G, they both will do it absolutely equally. Period, nothing to talk about any longer.
About fatigue. Again, no reason to even take it into account, because material fatigue is a rather continuous process, it is generally impossible to reach a dangerous level of it during one mission, unless the airframe does not experience flatter (damage from which is modeled in the game). And, as we all know, the every next mission we fly in a factory-new airplane, which does not have any fatigue or other damage accumulated yet - that's the game limitation. It does not have any mean to transfer your plane state from mission to mission. Hence, no reason to model fatigue. And discuss it in relation to the IL-2 either.
That's all, folks.
|