[CLOSED] wings break off at 4g

[tusler]

from the expert

 

http://acepilots.com/usaaf_anderson.html

 

In the fall of 1944, the 357th combat-tested the new G-suits that had been developed for pilots, as Bud Anderson recounts. "The Mustangs could take very hard turns. Long before the wings flew off, the pilots would lose consciousness. Five G's and you might "gray out" but be able to function.

Six G's or so and you would black out completely. The form-fitting suits inflated as the airplane pulled G's, hugging you, and preventing the blood from leaving your head all at once. There were two experimental suits. One was water-filled, and turned out to be too cold at six miles up, even when filled with warm water on the ground. The other ones, air suits, drew air from the pressure side of the engine's vacuum pump. These suits wrapped around your abdomen, thighs, and calves, and inflated automatically. These worked much better."

 

So then the question is late in the war did the Germans have "G" suits, if they did the airplane had to be able to take more than 6g without breaking the wings. In another place on the web they say it was rated at 8 to 8.33 g for structure failure. These are not experts though.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110417142055AA4GuL6

Edited December 4, 2014 by tusler

[NineLine]

We have to get consensis here for some value, or this discussion will go on forever.

 

For a compromise, how about the structural limit gets raised by 2G from the current value (from ~6G to ~8G), so it actually reflects what the manual states?

 

6G are simply too low. Just for the reason of keeping the coherence of the simulation compared to the FW-190, the value should be raised by at least 2G.

 

I fully accept that the plane is breaking too easily, that I get, and right now I almost wonder if the numbers are backwards, as in the aircraft limits set to 4-5 Gs and the pilot set to 8-9. That would explain the easy breaks...

[bongodriver]

We must also accept that pilots will be able to take higher g loads in short bursts, it is sustained g that leads to g loc effects.

[NineLine]

We must also accept that pilots will be able to take higher g loads in short bursts, it is sustained g that leads to g loc effects.

 

Of course, it has to be a gradual effect, not instant so you can get away with some over g time...

[NineLine]

That would be one of funniest bugs I've seen so far. :D

 

I'm not saying that is what is going on... but its interesting that the plane is breaking right around the recommended pilot G limits :)

[Kwiatek]

In WWII? I dunno, I cant find anything to back that, if you have something for that, let me know...

 

Why not?

 

I got 8 G in aerobatic Fox glider for very short time without blackout and without any special training for these.

 

Remember that WW2 pilots were trained also for aerobatic so they were familiar with G forces also.

 

Actually my G meter in my aerobatic plane usually stand at + 6, -2.5 G.

[NineLine]

Why not?

 

I got 8 G in aerobatic Fox glider for very short time without blackout and without any special training for these.

 

Remember that WW2 pilots were trained also for aerobatic so they were familiar with G forces also.

 

Actually my G meter in my aerobatic plane usually stand at + 6, -2.5 G.

 

Again, I need to see it in writing, your Fox Glider might have been designed better for G's than something from the 40's, I dont know... I know nothing of a Fox Glider... What I have see so far is 4-4.5 Gs is the recommended Max, sounds like pilots often exceeded, but we need an average as every person can handle differently... you see pilots wash out because they cant handle the necessary G's...

[Kwiatek]

I find Mark Hanna report about 109 ( Buchon) flying :

 

" Pitch tends to be heavy above 400km/h, but it is still easy to manage up to 500km/h, and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping manoeuvres from 550km/h and below. Above 550km/h, one peculiarity is a slight nose-down trim change as you accelerate. This means that when you run in for an airshow above 500km/h, the airplane has a slight tucking sensation-a sort of desire to get down to ground level. This is easily held on the stick, or it can be trimmed out, but it is slightly surprising initially.

When you maneuver above 500km/h, two hands are required for a more aggressive performance. Either that or get on the trimmer to help. Despite this heavying up, it is still quite easy to get 5G at these speeds. The rudder is effective and of medium feel up to 500km/h. It becomes heavier above this speed, but regardless, the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with this airplane. Initial acceleration is rapid up to about 560km/h-particularly with nose down. After that, the 109 starts to become a little reluctant, and you have to be fairly determined to get over 600 km/h."

 

http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf

[ZaltysZ]

There are multiple posts on Russian side of forum about "wings bug" (wrong values at wrong place...) ant that it has been already fixed. Maybe we simply didn't get the fix with this version?

[NineLine]

There are multiple posts on Russian side of forum about "wings bug" (wrong values at wrong place...) ant that it has been already fixed. Maybe we simply didn't get the fix with this version?

 

Its very possible, there are versions in testing higher than what is in release.

[CoNa]

Ripping off aerilons

 

Is it just me that is too hard in the turns?

I have ripped off left aerilon and 25% of the wing 10 times now. :shocking:

Just turning, without any damage, pop! and it breaks off.

 

Am I just ....doing it wrong?

[airdoc]

Easy wing damage has already been reported :

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134839

[CoNa]

Ah, great! I forgot to check the bug report.

Thx

[tomudesu]

I havent dug into to much, but it seems like the most was supposed to be 4.-4.5.... I some how doubt it was recommended for your average WWII fighter pilot to go running around pulling 8G's... but am willing to be proven wrong...

 

And 8G's again is the limits of the aircraft, not the pilot.

 

My Great Uncle flew P-51s, and he specifically talked about how a senior airman in his wing told the new guys when they couldn't shake a bad guy that they call it over the radio and then they should pull the stick until they begin to lose vision, and then count to 3 or 5 or something like that and release. He said they would always be in the clear after that and if the bad guy tried to follow, a friendly would be on him.

 

Now of course, they weren't pulling 8g most likely, but they were being told to pull hard.

[Hadwell]

how the heck would you pull 8G's in a plane that's elevators basically lock up completely above 650kph? (the 109)

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

There's definitely something strange going on here....

 

On most occasions my wings broke apart instantly, I do not even think I might have exceeded 6G ( ? ), but I'll have to install that Tackview application to check that...

[Alladyn]

There's definitely something strange going on here....

 

On most occasions my wings broke apart instantly, I do not even think I might have exceeded 6G ( ? ), but I'll have to install that Tackview application to check that...

:huh:

 

Just watch replay, and in the bottom you have label with G.

G4 and wing tips broke off:cry:...

 

Do 109 have no fuel in wings, or I'm wrong?

Edited December 5, 2014 by Alladyn

[ZaltysZ]

Do 109 have no fuel in wings, or I'm wrong?

 

It has L shaped fuel tank, which is installed partly below the pilot and partly behind him.

[NineLine]

I did some testing last night, and the wings broke consistantly at about 6.5-7Gs, probably still too weak, but I certainly didnt break them at 4-5Gs.. also I think tunnel vision or blacking out isnt kicking in soon enough, this should be a warning of sorts that you are pushing to your limits and its simply not there... both reported (as well as the strange fire ball under the belly when you break a wing tip off lol)

[Infirtaris]

One observation I would like to add that I don't believe has been mentioned yet.

 

The area of the wing that breaks seems to correlate to the position of the wing slats.

 

I will be honest I don't know the ins and outs of the FDE and how it all works within DCS but I wonder if this has anything to do with it.

 

In the other WW2 aircraft in a high speed dive with a sudden pull out the wings break at the root I think.

 

Food for thought.

 

Chaff/Flare

[thawall]

Another thought: a friend of mine noticed, that in single player the wing is much more stable, while in mp they tend to snap off even at very low g forces.

 

I'm currently not at home for testing, but that could explain the different experiences (4g vs 6g).

[NineLine]

Another thought: a friend of mine noticed, that in single player the wing is much more stable, while in mp they tend to snap off even at very low g forces.

 

I'm currently not at home for testing, but that could explain the different experiences (4g vs 6g).

 

Yes, let me know if you see a difference online... that could be another issue...

[The_Ant]

The K4 is wing bugged.Try the intercept mission,and if you are running at max throttle when flying behind the cargo planes,the K4 wings just gets ripped of by the slipstream.Happens also alot when i play the dogfight mission against the P51,happens all the time when hitting the slipstream at full Power.

[tusler]

I am sure that most of these underdeveloped areas of the aircraft the programmers know about. But thanks for taking the time to listen to us the users and being so patient while you are doing it.

So far every module that ED has had time with has turned out to be the best available of any made for my home computer.

Thanks for cruising the forums and helping us with questions and submissions.

The reality for me is I have more than enough aircraft here to play with while they are finishing it, I just have to fly within the constraints that are present at this time.

Thanks ED for letting us have it early.:drunk:

[FoReIgNeR]

For me it's always the right wing which blows off, never the left. I am testing as we speak...