![]() |
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Really hope that this will prevent bombers from doing advanced combat manevers
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects ![]() |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Structural dammage G-Limits example and famous video.
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
infamous CGI you mean.
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Bellator; 09-16-2010 at 07:14 AM. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
![]() |
|
|