New structural G-limit feature

[AndyJWest]

'British aerospace'? Anachronistic to say the least in relation to WW 2 aircraft.

Can you provide references, Bellator? Including the safety factors that otherwise make such figures of little significance. As I've already said, you have to compare like with like.

EDIT
I've found a recent thread on the Ubi forum that refers to this - it appears that British, US, and German standards were different: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...8531075258/p/3

[Bellator]

Hi Andy,

Like I said it's only what I've read, but it seems to be true enough.

Kettenhunde at the Ubi forum knows it better than me it seems though:

That margin for damage to the airframe is "1" for US, British, and French aircraft, Bill. In technical terms, that means there is no margin.

That means if it says 6G, then the aircraft will be damaged if you exceed that limit. There is no buffer from the published limits.

The Germans had a 1.35 margin of safety for damage limits. That means there is a buffer from the published limits if you make a comparison to United States, Britain, and French standards. In other words, for the same airframe strength, the Germans will publish lower limits. If the published limits are the same, the German aircraft is stronger.

The United States, Britain, and France had a 1.5 margin of safety limit for airframe failure. The Germans had a 1.8 margin of safety limit for failure.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by julian265

I reckon it'll be worse for the P-51/190 crowd myself - high speed manoeuvrability more easily allows excessive G's than the spit's elevator.

Spit elevator is very responsive at high speed, ailerons are not good.

[AndyJWest]

Bellator, I understand what you are saying, but I'd be a bit wary of taking such figures too literally - they seem to imply (a) that there is a fixed ratio between G force necessary to cause airframe damage and that needed to cause failure, and (b) this ratio differed between Allied and Luftwaffe aircraft.

It's worth noting, at least in passing, that there are suggestions in the thread that early Spitfires were designed for 10 G loads, and actual tests on wings exceeded this.

[JtD]

Spitfires failed past 12g's. Tested.
The handbook says 10g starts to be unsafe (Spit II).

Bottom line: 5.33g might have been a minimum requirement for British fighter aircraft of the day, but the Spitfire could take far more. It's pretty much the same a Fw could take.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Really interesting to see how this is implemented. Over-G can cause deformation, buckled aircraft skin, loose rivets etc. For a new airframe it really needs some punishment, an extreme over-G situation to cause critical failure. In IL-2 all planes are new and they do not wear out or get old, every time you press fly getting a fresh plane.

So basically this new feature will just prevent some extreme moves seen now, but not affect the planes themselves that much. After a bit the players have adapted. Looking forward to see how this will work in SoW. Nevertheless, a nice feature even it can not be implemented 100% due IL2 engine limitations.

[Masi67]

Really hope that this will prevent bombers from doing advanced combat manevers

[robtek]

Don't let your hope rise too much, if you are flying red
The Ju88, i.e., was structurally so sound that it also was used as fighter!!!
The Ju87 has also high g-limits.
The only handicap is the power/weight ratio and not enough speed.

[Xilon_x]

Structural dammage G-Limits example and famous video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCbk...eature=related

[Dano]

infamous CGI you mean.