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.

[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.

[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.