Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

What stress model with multirole aircraft like the Mosquito and Beaufighter get? Fighter or Bomber?

And will dive bombers like SBD's and Stukas be stressed apropriately?

There is neither fighter nor bomber profiles (if I read it correctly). Each aircraft will get it's own unique profile. Though since it is not included in either 'average' fighter or bomber, the multi-role middle-ground is a big mystery.

The mosquito is really a slow turning airplane to begin with (and made of wood ). Maybe affected perhaps similarly to any other aircraft when loaded up with tons of bombs.

Ju-87.. they can black out the pilot for sure, without damage to the wings (pulling out of dive). But can they repeat that with a ton of bombs underneath I wonder (not that one would ever need to try that).

I think we can expect some noticable differences between different aircraft, affecting some more than others. I think I read somewhere that fires of spit have extremely good tolerance to G's. But I could be wrong. Either way, the twin engined multi-role planes are probably the most mysterious to me.

I'm also wondering about wing-loading. Low wing loading means being able to pull more G's (typically) while high means less. The twin engined multi-role planes seem to have higher wing loading than others despite having larger wings. Having engines on the wings themselves, however, means a LOT of weight moved away from the center of the fuselage. Makes me curious how much a 110 fuselage weighs compares to single engined planes. And if it can have any bearing on it's ability to carry more. Longer wings could also exert more forces at the wing attachment point than shorter wings, if that sort of leverage physics works on wings.

[IvanK]

Gents you are overcomplicating the whole thing, relax and take breath It all works exceptionally well. Each single aircraft has been considered in its own right and role. SBD and JU87 are strong enough to do what they need to ... 6G dive recoveries after release is not an issue. So yes all aircraft are stressed appropriately.

[MikkOwl]

I don't have much concern for what planes changes how (I have confidence it will be fairly realistic, which is all I would want). Any apparent stressed concern is just keen passion to think about the topic (and combined with an excessive verbosity = long posts). Curious I am to learn more. Here I go thinking I had a decent understanding of how aircraft behaved in some aspects and things like these come along to stir the pot.

May have a look around for official figures for some of the aircraft.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

There is neither fighter nor bomber profiles (if I read it correctly). Each aircraft will get it's own unique profile. Though since it is not included in either 'average' fighter or bomber, the multi-role middle-ground is a big mystery.

Thats good to hear.

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

The mosquito is really a slow turning airplane to begin with

According to il2 compare (I've got V4.07 at the moment) the FBMkVI in the game out turns a Bf-110G-2 from about 285kph up (by a conciderable margin) so it's not too shabby.

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

(and made of wood ). Maybe affected perhaps similarly to any other aircraft when loaded up with tons of bombs.

Hey! Wood was the composite of time, and De Havilland had a long history of long distance wooden planes like the DH-88.

By all accounts they were a robust aircraft, much loved by their pilots. Early on they had some problems with wings de-laminating but that was traced down to faulty glue and exposure to the elements. But no more problems than other all-metal planes suffered from during their development.

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

Ju-87.. they can black out the pilot for sure, without damage to the wings (pulling out of dive). But can they repeat that with a ton of bombs underneath I wonder (not that one would ever need to try that).

I think we can expect some noticable differences between different aircraft, affecting some more than others. I think I read somewhere that fires of spit have extremely good tolerance to G's. But I could be wrong. Either way, the twin engined multi-role planes are probably the most mysterious to me.

I'm also wondering about wing-loading. Low wing loading means being able to pull more G's (typically) while high means less. The twin engined multi-role planes seem to have higher wing loading than others despite having larger wings. Having engines on the wings themselves, however, means a LOT of weight moved away from the center of the fuselage. Makes me curious how much a 110 fuselage weighs compares to single engined planes. And if it can have any bearing on it's ability to carry more. Longer wings could also exert more forces at the wing attachment point than shorter wings, if that sort of leverage physics works on wings.

Agreed, it's going to be a very interesting time once it is released.

Cheers

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Gents you are overcomplicating the whole thing, relax and take breath It all works exceptionally well. Each single aircraft has been considered in its own right and role. SBD and JU87 are strong enough to do what they need to ... 6G dive recoveries after release is not an issue. So yes all aircraft are stressed appropriately.

Good to hear! Cheers!

[Flanker35M]

S!

Interesting read As of modern jets, their FCS software/computers limit the G you can pull with loadout attached. This is achieved by telling the FCS via armament computers what you have etc. This is simplified way of saying this, won't go to details for apparent reasons So basically if a plane can carry say 1000kg of ordnance the G-limit would drop, but carrying the loadout itself won't stress the airframe that much as it is designed for it.

The problems arise if you go over the G limit with ordnance attached. With mild stress the attachment points, like bomb racks, pylons and their attachements, are stressed and the structure of tha aircraft. Yet this is not enough to cause deformation or broken places. The structure must be worn out already to even fail undr mild over G.

Now you pull moderate over G with ordance and this can cause slight damage to attachment points, bomb rack locks, even slight deformations or buckles. Yet structural failure is not imminent unless the structure/attachment point is stressed already and worn out. But this moderate over G will reduce the overall plane life expectancy regarding structural integrity.

Now with heavy over G there will be damage, deformation, loose or even broken rivets. Attachment points can be damaged or even broken thus losing the ordnance and/or structural parts. Usual place is the bomb rack locking mechanism to give away before the pylon or other structure. This is to protect the plane. Heavy over G greatly reduces the life of the airframe if continuous and will cause cracks, dents and deformation in the long run. Planes are afterall designed to tolerate a certain amount of stress before breaking or reduced integrity.

Severe over G can cause loss of structural parts and integrity. But this would require a very sharp high peak value of G. The risk is biger when the airframe is older. Again the structural loss can be due other parts than the structure itself breaking, like in Mustangs the main landing gear uplock mechanism failing in a high speed high G pull up causing it to extend and rip off thus causing a Class A mishap. So basically structure itself begins to break when secondary or tertiary structure/equipment fail exposing the structure to loads above design criteria. A single severe over G maight not break a plane, but it could be a write off due damage it will sustain.

I hope this clarified even a bit of this matter. This all based on my work and all that. Over G is not just simply an on/off situation to lose a part or similar, more like a cumulative event. Everything adds to strain and when the maximum has been reached failures begin and lead to catastrophic results.

Have a nice weekend!

[Ernst]

I believe this ll be a major issue to spitfire with good elevator autority at high speeds. Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators before maximun g-loadings, its really hard to go beyond its limits. Second p-51 picture shows that.

[MikkOwl]

Here is some interesting stuff. Training docs for the A-20G say:

• Acrobatics are forbidden
• Power-on stalls are forbidden, high-speed stalls at over 200 mph IAS (320 kph) will pull the plane apart.
• Turns of over 75 degrees of bank will damage the plane's wings, turns of 70 degrees stall the plane at 200 mph IAS
• The plane isn't designed to go into sharp angle dives or pull out from a steep angle dives

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=2122.0

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

Interesting read As of modern jets[...]

Thanks for that information. Very enjoyable and interesting (my very first and longest keen interest was regarding mid-coldwar onwards jets, when I was a kid in the mid 1980's - and I never heard about this). Do you think the WW2 metallurgy, no titanium alloys, lack of carbon fiber composites, lack of engine power but with a rough vibrating powerplant, no robotic CNC precision manufacturing etc might make them behave differently from the modern jets in any way to being over-stressed?

Originally Posted by Ernst

I believe this ll be a major issue to spitfire with good elevator autority at high speeds. Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators before maximun g-loadings, its really hard to go beyond its limits. Second p-51 picture shows that.

I do not follow. "Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators" makes my mind run never ending barrell rolls especially. Could you rephrase/elaborate?

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

According to il2 compare (I've got V4.07 at the moment) the FBMkVI in the game out turns a Bf-110G-2 from about 285kph up (by a conciderable margin) so it's not too shabby.

Comparing the 110 C-4 and G-2 to the Mosquito models, they come out pretty much exactly the same, but with 'in general' the 110 having slightly better average than the Mosquitos. The wing loadings are also similar, with the 110 having slightly lower in the C-4.

Indeed they were great aircraft. Been watching a documentary of the Mosquito since last night due to this (biased and Brit-promoting, leaving out almost any bad word of how the Mosquitos performed in various missions, but great modern footage of mosquitos flying, from outside as well as long in-cockpit views facing forward. Strange seating arrangement and entry hatch).

[MikkOwl]

I have a request for Team Daidalos for a multiplayer server option: Accelerated fuel consumption. Just a multiplier equal for all planes.

For the sake of not spending an hour to fly to a target, multiplayer servers very, very often place airfields very close to the border between the teams. But this significantly benefits single engined fighters who can with no penalty grab a big bomb load (if they have the option), forgo drop tanks and still be able to loiter if they need to. Meanwhile, twin engined aircraft give almost no benefit at all (their fuel capacity being wasted). Grabbing 25% to 50% fuel in even short range single engined fighters is common, even when carrying big bombs.

This also leads to performance beyond what was achievable in reality in most circumstances, range being completely irellevant and a tendency to see single engined fighters doing the bombing.

I am sure some servers would see this as a big improvement and finally giving a more varied use of aircraft (and thus, tactics) to mix things up and make them more realistic.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

I have a request for Team Daidalos for a multiplayer server option: Accelerated fuel consumption. Just a multiplier equal for all planes.

For the sake of not spending an hour to fly to a target, multiplayer servers very, very often place airfields very close to the border between the teams. But this significantly benefits single engined fighters who can with no penalty grab a big bomb load (if they have the option), forgo drop tanks and still be able to loiter if they need to. Meanwhile, twin engined aircraft give almost no benefit at all (their fuel capacity being wasted). Grabbing 25% to 50% fuel in even short range single engined fighters is common, even when carrying big bombs.

This also leads to performance beyond what was achievable in reality in most circumstances, range being completely irellevant and a tendency to see single engined fighters doing the bombing.

I am sure some servers would see this as a big improvement and finally giving a more varied use of aircraft (and thus, tactics) to mix things up and make them more realistic.

Agreed, but when you think about it, it's fairly unrealistic to have the pilot choose his loadouts (or planes for that matter) at all. Maybe if you were a famous ace or squadron leader you could have made a request, but in general those sorts of decisions were made at a higher level and a pilot flew what he was given.

I'm fairly sure the server and mission designer can restrict aircraft and their loadout at the moment.

When BoB is released I'ld love to see a mission where all the planes are worn out and damaged from the start of the mission!

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

Comparing the 110 C-4 and G-2 to the Mosquito models, they come out pretty much exactly the same, but with 'in general' the 110 having slightly better average than the Mosquitos.

Some things you just can't average out. You have your aircrafts flight performance and your opponents. Part of being a good combat pilot (And I'm nowhere close to being one of those) is looking at your stengths and your opponents weaknesses and flying appropriately


Cheers