New structural G-limit feature

[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.

[Flanker35M]

S!

The "workaround" will be that most people will be flying with even less fuel = lighter planes. That alone helps to reduce the adverse effects as less weight = higher G can be pulled. Applies to fighters mostly.

Most I am interested in the bombers and how this G thingy affects them. The plane itself can withstand some G(far less than a fighter) but the bomb racks for sure can not withstand forces of high G with payload hung in them. The locks will fail thus causing damage or even explosion inside the plane. With a bomb load the maximum G is much lower, even on modern jets.

[Tempest123]

Yeah, that's def. whats gonna happen, should make for some more realistic dogfights. Does anyone know what kind of structural limitations, or g-limits were found on soviet aircraft such as Yaks and La-s. I know that Yaks are highly maneuverable and I would have thought that could withstand some higher g's?

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

The, new G-related effects are part of the upcoming 4.10 patch from TD, Friendly_Flyer.

Ouch, serves me well for not paying attention.

My point about the Hurri still stands. The arguments about what plane can take the worst beating are downright silly. There are ways to find this out, mainly the known loading strengths of the spars, wing area and plane weight. German safety standards and and rugged planes kind of arguments are silly.

As for the Hurri, I don't expect her to stand extreme G-loads. If anything her saving grace would be them thick wings, stopping her from building up dangerous speeds.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Hurricane's design was rugged and the structure could take some beating without breaking. The wings were thick and this caused that most contemporary fighters could with relative ease just out accelerate it in a dive and gain distance. Finnish tests showed that even the controls were good and quite easily managed, the roll rate was not very good. To this added the guns being out in the wing and the ammo load.

Another thing is the wing. Early Mk.I's had the fabric covered wing and it did not withstand damage very well, a short burst or even only a few bullets could cause the fabric to rip off and that is not a good thing. Finns lost at least 1 Hurricane Mk.I in a dive when the fabric covered wing peeled off thus there were limitations set for speeds used. Also the performance of the fabric winged Hurricane deteriorated much faster than on the metal winged one.

What made the Hurricane most easily shot down plane by Finns was the reason that even being structurally decently strong it caught fire very easily. Pilots were taught to aim in front of the cockpit where an oil and fuel tank were located, result was in most cases a flying torch. Also hits from low 6 were effective as it punctured the cockpit floor, radiator etc.

This just as an example. Structure can be good but other things cause the failure. In this case flammable liquids and the fabric cover of the wing. For the Fw190 a hit in 20mm or 30mm ammo could cause an explosion ripping the wing off, Mustangs were lost due the MLG uplock failing in high speed high G situation, Yaks and La-5's breaking up in dives due wing failure, Bf109G-6 lawn darting due wooden tail disintegrating in a dive..the list goes on. Every plane had it's vices. But in IL-2 we always have fresh planes that are "built to the specs", no sabotage or poor craftmanship etc.

I am waiting for 4.10 a lot

[Tempest123]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

This just as an example. Structure can be good but other things cause the failure. In this case flammable liquids and the fabric cover of the wing. For the Fw190 a hit in 20mm or 30mm ammo could cause an explosion ripping the wing off, Mustangs were lost due the MLG uplock failing in high speed high G situation, Yaks and La-5's breaking up in dives due wing failure, Bf109G-6 lawn darting due wooden tail disintegrating in a dive..the list goes on. Every plane had it's vices. But in IL-2 we always have fresh planes that are "built to the specs", no sabotage or poor craftmanship etc.

+1, too many factors involved. Il2 can only simulate factory fresh aircraft w. no defects.

[Ernst]

My arguments are in the sense that some aircraft could had its lifetime structure
integrity lasting for much more time in war conditions. I do not known about Hurricanes, but if it is adequated for poor conditions and easy to repair, its structure will last more time inside the specifications of its fabrication. If it had disadvantanges or advantages in its fabrication time then it ll remain in this standarts for longer time.