Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Adwark

Here is two links http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...oFB6Manual.pdf see chapter 52.

Second http://books.google.lv/books?id=Sfwq...ations&f=false .

Both in English.

Yes, but you are comparing the P-51 to the Mosquito. I Asked for "evidence that the DH Mosquito was designed to lower G-loading standards than similar metal-construction aircraft". I don't see how a single seater fighter can be 'similar" to a twin engined bomber/night fighter in this context.

I can't see any stated G-load limitations in the Mosquito document anyway, so this doesn't really help.

[Ernst]

May you have to post a P-38 or ME-110 manual to solve the match. I think P-38 "twin tailed devil" it is a superb twin engine fighter, and i guess it is mainly metal construction. I guess that it would not fly as it flied if it was mainly wood construction.

Take a P-38 Manual and post here guys. I did not read it before, take a look friends:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...ges-20445.html

[Erkki]

What makes you think using wood results in lower performance? Why do you think its worse? FW190, late Bf109s as well as most Russian aircraft, including IL-2s, had wood in them. So did the Mosquito. Ta-154, He-162, La-7, anyone?

If an aircraft can tolerate 8G then it can tolerate the 8G no matter what its constructed of.

[robtek]

Also if a wooden construction is slightly overstressed it bends and gets back to its original form.
A metal structure, connected by rivets, starts to bend and by that the rivets become a bit more loose.
That weakens the construction quite a bit! A metal construction doesn't forget stresses!

[Adwark]

Originally Posted by robtek

Also if a wooden construction is slightly overstressed it bends and gets back to its original form.
A metal structure, connected by rivets, starts to bend and by that the rivets become a bit more loose.
That weakens the construction quite a bit! A metal construction doesn't forget stresses!

Huh. You know some builders in my town thinking like you. You know what happened with them? They are in jail now. They took off ceiling general support pylons and wood covering little bit overstressed and broken down. 3 peoples was killed. Is ceiling has a metal rails covering 3 peoples doesn't die. Its only sagging, but not breaking. That is wood and metal constructions difference. Wood is wood, metal is metal. Thats not important where are you used it.

[robtek]

In the context where i posted this its meant a SLIGHT overstress, say 5 to 10 %, for a short period of time, say 5 to 10 seconds,
as one might expect in a break turn or a pull-out.
That is a unintentional overstressing.
I believe what you wanted to say is that someone was building a roof not acoording to the expected loads,
well, thats intentional and really doesn't reflect the situation that i pictured.
Anyway, that a metal construction only sags if overstressed to the same degree as a wooden construction is very hypothetical and hard to prove.

[SaQSoN]

To stop this pointless discussion about wood vs metal:

For any mechanical engineer it is absolutely obvious, that if an object is properly designed to withstand a certain load, it will withstand it, no matter which material it was designed and built from - wood, steel, aluminum or even $hit. Offcourse, each material has it's limits and for certain tasks some of them aren't applicable at all. Like, you can build a plane from wood or metal, but you can not build it from a $hit, though you can build, say, a house from any of the listed materials.

So, the final point is, if, for instance, we have two wing spars, one of them was designed and built from wood and the other one - from a metal and both are supposed to withstand 8G, they both will do it absolutely equally. Period, nothing to talk about any longer.

About fatigue. Again, no reason to even take it into account, because material fatigue is a rather continuous process, it is generally impossible to reach a dangerous level of it during one mission, unless the airframe does not experience flatter (damage from which is modeled in the game). And, as we all know, the every next mission we fly in a factory-new airplane, which does not have any fatigue or other damage accumulated yet - that's the game limitation. It does not have any mean to transfer your plane state from mission to mission. Hence, no reason to model fatigue. And discuss it in relation to the IL-2 either.

That's all, folks.

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

To stop this pointless discussion about wood vs metal:

For any mechanical engineer it is absolutely obvious, that if an object is properly designed to withstand a certain load, it will withstand it, no matter which material it was designed and built from - wood, steel, aluminum or even $hit. Offcourse, each material has it's limits and for certain tasks some of them aren't applicable at all. Like, you can build a plane from wood or metal, but you can not build it from a $hit, though you can build, say, a house from any of the listed materials.

So, the final point is, if, for instance, we have two wing spars, one of them was designed and built from wood and the other one - from a metal and both are supposed to withstand 8G, they both will do it absolutely equally. Period, nothing to talk about any longer.

About fatigue. Again, no reason to even take it into account, because material fatigue is a rather continuous process, it is generally impossible to reach a dangerous level of it during one mission, unless the airframe does not experience flatter (damage from which is modeled in the game). And, as we all know, the every next mission we fly in a factory-new airplane, which does not have any fatigue or other damage accumulated yet - that's the game limitation. It does not have any mean to transfer your plane state from mission to mission. Hence, no reason to model fatigue. And discuss it in relation to the IL-2 either.

That's all, folks.

Well said. I would have posted something like that myself but I just didn't bother. People posting incorrect stuff about that lack technical education IMO.

Maybe SoW will have such a feature, to simulate fatigue over continuous period of missions...

[MD_Titus]

more knowledge than the aircraft engineers that made these things?

[AndyJWest]

Ernst, I can see no point in even attempting to correct your misunderstanding of what is under discussion here. If you want to contribute anything useful, I suggest you study a little about the subject first, rather than making ridiculous claims based on balsa-wood and the carbon content of aluminium alloys.

As far as I'm concerned, unless somone can come up with meaningful comparative G-load figures, the topic is closed.