1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-15-2010, 11:35 AM
Flanker35M Flanker35M is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,804
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-16-2010, 04:13 AM
Tempest123's Avatar
Tempest123 Tempest123 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robtek View Post
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.
Don't forget that "red" won the war In all seriousness the Luftwaffe aircraft where excellent but many of the aircraft of this era are going to be similar in structural limits. For example the DH Mosquito was certainly a better fighter than the Ju-88, and probably a better bomber as well.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-16-2010, 06:04 AM
Bellator Bellator is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
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.

Last edited by Bellator; 09-16-2010 at 06:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-16-2010, 06:10 AM
WTE_Galway WTE_Galway is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellator View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-16-2010, 06:39 AM
Flanker35M Flanker35M is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,804
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-16-2010, 12:20 PM
AndyJWest AndyJWest is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,048
Default

Bellator, all you've done is repeat your earlier assertions, and add a few more besides. Do you have the slightest grounds for doubting the accuracy of Spitfire structural tests? No, you don't. And do you really think you can determine the strength of a wing by looking at it?

You've still provided no evidence at all to back up your claims. As far as I'm aware, the only source for an alleged 5.33 G limit for Spitfires is an unreferenced Wikipedia article, which is flatly contradicted by the Pilots' Notes.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-16-2010, 02:26 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-16-2010, 03:40 PM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 285
Default

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.

Last edited by Ernst; 09-16-2010 at 03:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-16-2010, 06:10 PM
Friendly_flyer's Avatar
Friendly_flyer Friendly_flyer is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
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.
__________________
Fly friendly!



Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF

Petter Bøckman
Norway
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-16-2010, 06:49 PM
AndyJWest AndyJWest is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,048
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:16 AM.

Based on a design by: Miner Skinz.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.