Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[MikkOwl]

Planes that will be affected? Can try to guess. Anyone feel free to correct any bad guesses/assumptions here

We already found out that non-fighters (like bombers) are getting the worst penalty, so not going to talk about those.

For the fighters & fighter-bombers, without knowing how their G-rating is like. Wo knows, some aircraft might have very high rating and not be affected at all.

Good turning ability at low speed: Turning hard means more G generated, but if traveling slowly enough, it does not necessarily amount to a very high amount possible.
Result: Minor Penalty

Good turning ability at medium speed:
The G's start to stack up if turning well. The aircraft that turn well in this range tend to turn REALLY well although the
Result: Large Penalty

Good turning ability at high speed:
Potential to really mess up the aircraft if being a bit reckless on the elevator controls. Good instantaneous turn rate in combination with high speed is maximum Gs possible.
Result: Large Penalty

Good roll rate:
Completely unaffected by the change.
Result: Large Improvement (relative to other traits getting worse)

Heavier MG's/Cannons options:
Strapping on heavier guns and ammo means does not mean more G's, but more strain on the wings at any G-loading.
Result: Large Penalty
(Bf-110's Bk 3.7 cannon, and Mk 108's come to mind as well as all kinds of gun-pods)

Using a fighter platform for bombing (fighter-bombing):
The greatest penalty of all, especially if it is a well turning model with high speed abilities.
Result: Very Large Penalty

High internal fuel capacity:
Had some benefit in being able to fly around a lot without suffering the drop tank speed penalty. The drop tanks can at least be dumped at any time to lighten up the plane.
Result: Minor penalty

Forgetting to jettison bombs and drop tanks before maneuvering wildly:
Result: WINGS OFF!

The traits are so dependant on the type of fighter, and who knows of how durable each model is. Are energy fighters going to be affected at all as long as they stick to 'energy fighting'? Are turn fighters going to be affected much, as they can already turn beyond blackout point and still probably be below the service loading? Will the FW-190 be affected much, as it's roll rate is more valuable but the quick short jink style turns are less available? Will the twin fighters get affected by their heavier armament/bombs and poor roll rate, as they usually go into battle with very low fuel (compared to what they are capable of carrying) and them probably being built to be very sturdy anyway? Will diving fast make much of a difference, as the elevators suffer compressability at high speed anyway?

I think the Fw 190 will be affected when on the defensive. And that single-engined fighters will be worse for bombing and fighter-bombing. I cannot tell about twin engined heavy fighters when carrying bombs out there... the lighter bombers (AC-20) is already known to be affected strongly, and how much different is the 110 really? If rockets are much lighter than bombs, then the P-38's should become an even more preferred method to kill things on the ground with.

Having a very heavy bomb-load will be worse, in any aircraft. Maybe there's more incentive to choose a bit less extreme bomb load.

Drop tanks to carry fuel in should be more valuable than putting it internally (done to avoid the speed penalty of drop tanks otherwise). The tank can be jettisoned any time anyway and the manuverability is unaffected then.

[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?

[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 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!

[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