Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrunch
Have a read through this, Ernst. EDIT: In fact you posted in that thread, you've probably read it all already.
|
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.