New structural G-limit feature

[Flanker35M]

S!

Over-G is a dynamic situation. Have to take in account speed, AoA, plane weight etc. Done a fair share of the checks myself on planes that have gone over the G limit. Really the worst case scenario for over-G is when the plane is full of fuel and has ordnance carried. It requires far less input to get into the serious over-G. I think the over-G will affect most the bombers in IL-2. Soon we will see..

[Tempest123]

Originally Posted by 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.

Don't forget that "red" won the war In all seriousness the Luftwaffe aircraft where excellent but many of the aircraft of this era are going to be similar in structural limits. For example the DH Mosquito was certainly a better fighter than the Ju-88, and probably a better bomber as well.

[Bellator]

Originally Posted by 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.

The Spitfire II might be able to take ~12 G's before suffering a catastrophic failure, if those tests are accurate mind you, but damage would occur way before.

Point is though that the Spitfire got a lot heavier through each version, and by the time of the Spitfire Mk.IX you'd have crept up around the 5.4 G load limit area with a 1.5 safety factor for the point of failure. (8 G breaking point)

And by Kettenhunde:

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.

So the Fw190 A8 which has a 6 G load limit factor by German standards has one of 8.1 G by US & UK standards, and a 12 G safety limit for failure.

So it really aint true what you're saying, i.e. that the Spitfire's wings could take as much as the Fw190's, which would also seem abit odd as the Fw190's wings look a lot more robustly constructed.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Bellator

The Spitfire II might be able to take ~12 G's before suffering a catastrophic failure, if those tests are accurate mind you, but damage would occur way before.

Point is though that the Spitfire got a lot heavier through each version, and by the time of the Spitfire Mk.IX you'd have crept up around the 5.3 G load limit area with a 1.5 safety factor. (8 G breaking point)

By comparison the Fw190 A-8 had a load limit factor of 6 G at take off weight with a safety factor of 1.8. (10.8 G breaking point)

So it really aint true what you're saying, i.e. that the Spitfire's wings could take as much as the Fw190's, which would also seem abit odd as the Fw190's wings look a lot more robustly constructed.

Among other differences the fw190 undercarriage is outboard and the wheels fold inwards.

[Flanker35M]

S!


Galway, there is much more to it than how your landing gear is attached or how it folds. The inner structure of the wing and how it is attached to the fuselage determines more than just one LDG component.

We get G-limits in IL-2 on planes that are always factory fresh. We do not have to worry about the FI(Fatigue Index) on the airframe, how much the plane has been strained during it's service. Older structure that has been flown hamfisted will loose it's strength thus the risk of damage or even critical failure in a High-G situation. A new plane can take a lot of beating without breaking.

What we get is a simplified feature of something that involves more than just how much G a plane can pull. It will add to the realism without being fully realistic feature. This with a 13 year experience on working with military jets every day.

[AndyJWest]

Bellator, all you've done is repeat your earlier assertions, and add a few more besides. Do you have the slightest grounds for doubting the accuracy of Spitfire structural tests? No, you don't. And do you really think you can determine the strength of a wing by looking at it?

You've still provided no evidence at all to back up your claims. As far as I'm aware, the only source for an alleged 5.33 G limit for Spitfires is an unreferenced Wikipedia article, which is flatly contradicted by the Pilots' Notes.

[JtD]

Bellator, the Fw A-8 figure of 6-8.1-10.8g is valid for a plane weight of 4450 kg.

A Spitfire MkIX, the most common of all Spitfires, weighted 3440kg. This means that, if it had the same structural strength the Fw has, it could take 7.8-10.5-14.0g. The fact that it doesn't, shows that the Fw is stronger.

Still, if you correct the safety factor of the Spit II of "about 10"g to the weight of the Spit IX, you end up with about 8g's - that's pretty much as good as the 8.1g's of the Fw.

So, what might be a bit of a misunderstanding - I'm saying that the Spit can take about as many g's as the Fw. I'm not saying that the wings are structurally as strong.

[Ernst]

Since we have no data i must agree with JtD, the FW wings had to be stronger since it was more heavier but this not imply it can take more g's, period. And we need data for such comparison.

I agree with Flanker too, all aircraft in IL2 are brandly new and can take a lot of punishment. However i guess some aircraft had more quality than others and its structure remains safe for longer time than others. We must remenber the bad conditions of the battlefield. In this case where we do not have new aircraft all time, the aircraft with better structural quality, more resistant to time conditions, continuous operations (umidity, oxidation, continuous stressing etc) and more easy to repair or change damaged parts in the battlefield had the edge, maintaining its performance integrity for longer time. This is the case of FW wich was a very ruged aircraft and can operate in almost all time and in very poor conditions, and such conditions were much more frequently in the eastern front (bad conditions of time, runways in poor conditions etc).

I have no data but i guess FW is a much better overall, all weather conditions and easy to repair fighter than its western rivals. Since IL2 does not simulates this features i think FW has lost one of its most powerfull advantages in RL.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Ernst

the aircraft with better structural quality, more resistant to time conditions, continuous operations (umidity, oxidation, continuous stressing etc) and more easy to repair or change damaged parts in the battlefield had the edge, maintaining its performance integrity for longer time. This is the case of FW wich was a very ruged aircraft and can operate in almost all time and in very poor conditions,

The Hurricane too was known for being able to operate from bad airfields, under adverse conditions, easy to repair (as long as it flew with RAF) and serving for a long time. Do you imply that the Hurricane was a strong plane too?

There's no need to worry about the ruggedness of the FW-190, we won't see it in BoB anyway.

[AndyJWest]

There's no need to worry about the ruggedness of the FW-190, we won't see it in BoB anyway.

The, new G-related effects are part of the upcoming 4.10 patch from TD, Friendly_Flyer. I'm sure there will be lots more discussion (read 'blazing rows' ) when it is released.