PDA

View Full Version : P-51D: Paper wings or...?



DKoor
05-12-2008, 05:40 PM
I can't say that I'm sure what just happened to me in one P-51D sortie.

In short; I followed Bf-109 in dive and he rolled to the right, I tried to follow but my left wing just snapped off.
In replay I saw that the mentioned accident happened at exactly 635km/h TAS (at time 2:22 on track), on very low altitude.
Now I'm puzzled... since my stick input was mainly in aileron, and also not so radical... how come that happened?
My best guess is that P-51D was not able to endure the aileron (?) force on its wings, however my feeling was that this shouldn't have happened, thus I write all this.

Well I have a track... so maybe we can discuss it?

d/l
http://www.filefactory.com/file/15359f/

http://i26.tinypic.com/11ih7j7.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/9rhhk9.jpg

DKoor
05-12-2008, 05:40 PM
I can't say that I'm sure what just happened to me in one P-51D sortie.

In short; I followed Bf-109 in dive and he rolled to the right, I tried to follow but my left wing just snapped off.
In replay I saw that the mentioned accident happened at exactly 635km/h TAS (at time 2:22 on track), on very low altitude.
Now I'm puzzled... since my stick input was mainly in aileron, and also not so radical... how come that happened?
My best guess is that P-51D was not able to endure the aileron (?) force on its wings, however my feeling was that this shouldn't have happened, thus I write all this.

Well I have a track... so maybe we can discuss it?

d/l
http://www.filefactory.com/file/15359f/

http://i26.tinypic.com/11ih7j7.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/9rhhk9.jpg

ImMoreBetter
05-12-2008, 05:56 PM
You pulled up too hard at 650kph.

Nothing wrong there. Just the P51's uber elevator authority.

I could hear the buffeting, I think you were pulling up more radically than you thought.

DKoor
05-12-2008, 06:18 PM
You are probably right.
I reviewed the track several times... however I can hear buffeting on a track for a very short period of time I'd say one sec. or so.
I definitely heard no buffeting when I played.

It was over really fast.

My honest first thought was that this happened due to much aileron input.

M_Gunz
05-12-2008, 06:51 PM
When you roll, you increase AOA on one wing (make lift) and decrease on the other.
If you try this too fast, bad things can happen. The faster you are moving and the more G's
you are already loaded with, the worse the result.

Were you closing on the 109 while this was going on?

Try keeping the P-51 trimmed just a little nose heavy at high speeds.

DKoor
05-12-2008, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Were you closing on the 109 while this was going on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, but very slowly... I'd say difference in speed was negligible in spite of him being shot in the engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Try keeping the P-51 trimmed just a little nose heavy at high speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thx will try next time.

ElAurens
05-12-2008, 07:18 PM
P51 wing loss is still over done IMHO.

Now I know I've just invited plagues of locusts etc.. on me for saying this, but the simple fact remains that in our little simulated world we have no "seat of the pants" feel of anything. A real P51 pilot would feel in his controls and in the airframe in general if things were getting close to the edge. Some lee way must be given for the lack of tactile inputs.

And in any case wing loss in real aircraft was no where near as prevalent as it is in the sim. Mostly limited to one block of early production P51Ds because of faulty gear door locking mechanisms.

Objektskaya
05-12-2008, 07:24 PM
If it's any consolation, I accidentally snapped off a Go-229 wing when trying to do a loop the other day. I had been cruising straight 'n' level at a good clip, probably 650-700 km/h or so, and I didn't think I pulled back all that hard. There was never any buffeting; I simply noticed the airplane was flying funny, and when I went to external view, saw I was missing a wing!

When you're going very fast, you can do VERY bad things to the aircraft without trying.

Sillius_Sodus
05-12-2008, 07:28 PM
The P-51, winning the war with one wing tied behind it's back! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

zxwings
05-12-2008, 07:47 PM
Indeed P51 pilots should be cautious in a high speed dive. I once read about an American ace on the western front who was never shot down by enemy fighters or flak, but who was eventually captured by the Germans because he ripped a wing off his P51 when pulling out of a dive - and no enemy aircraft was around him then. Don't remember his name or other details, though.

Korolov1986
05-12-2008, 07:57 PM
Altitude seems to be the deciding factor in wing breakage on all aircraft where it's a problem (P-51, Ki-84, etc).

I tried a dive from 7500m with the P-51D-20 and got to 800kmh TAS at around 4000m, and proceeded to pull out as hard as I could. I succeeded in only blacking out.

The same dive from 3000m to a speed of 780kmh TAS resulted in a wing breakage.

VW-IceFire
05-12-2008, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
P51 wing loss is still over done IMHO.

Now I know I've just invited plagues of locusts etc.. on me for saying this, but the simple fact remains that in our little simulated world we have no "seat of the pants" feel of anything. A real P51 pilot would feel in his controls and in the airframe in general if things were getting close to the edge. Some lee way must be given for the lack of tactile inputs.

And in any case wing loss in real aircraft was no where near as prevalent as it is in the sim. Mostly limited to one block of early production P51Ds because of faulty gear door locking mechanisms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We probably don't agree that often even when I don't speak up about it but I definitely agree with you there. Its a bit overdone...P-51 gets the limelight but a few other types like the YP-80 do it just as easily.

All it takes is a quick input on the stick and you've lost the wing.

R_Target
05-12-2008, 09:12 PM
Fly T-Bolt. Problem solved. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

VW-IceFire
05-12-2008, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
Fly T-Bolt. Problem solved. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thunderbolt is a much more "comfortable" fighter where you don't have to worry about that sort of thing. But its not quite as agile as the Mustang. Its a tradeoff between the two really. Mustang is a bit more of a performance aircraft as you have to balance it like a knife edge where as the Thunderbolt is a bit more subdued but absolutely confident in everything it does.

Aaron_GT
05-13-2008, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We probably don't agree that often even when I don't speak up about it but I definitely agree with you there. Its a bit overdone...P-51 gets the limelight but a few other types like the YP-80 do it just as easily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can do it in a number of planes. I've done it in the Fw190D before now. Hit 15G and the wings come off. The P51 simply has more effective elevators than most so it is easier to pull 15G. The subject has been done to death with outputs from DeviceLink.

ViktorViktor
05-13-2008, 03:33 AM
While reading the replies in this thread I remembered an incident which happened in real life and wonder if it had something to do with this topic:

namely the time that Hub Zemke (who first made a name for himself as commander of the 56th FG, flying P-47s) had his P-51 break up during mid-flight in the middle of a storm. I think he survived the accident but ended up captured.

This is the only incident I can remember of a WWII fighter breaking up because of bad weather, so this supports the contention P-51s being more prone to ripping off a wing than other plane types. Don't it ?

Capt.LoneRanger
05-13-2008, 04:09 AM
This problem is documented on many occasions and it was posted here, before. I remember a phrase from a book that it was always a problem, but much worse when the 2 additional HMGs were implemented into the wings and additionally weakened the wingroots.

I also saw a documentary about the P51 and a pilot mentioned that problem, too. He stated, that though they had been warned, most squadrons learned the hard way and lost a lot of P51s especially during groundattacks in the first days.

I used the QMB and tried to get close to limits.

Kettenhunde
05-13-2008, 04:12 AM
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3983/p51dwingfaliure1ee7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3983/p51dwingfaliure1ee7.36dcdee9c2.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=297&i=p51dwingfaliure1ee7.jpg)

As noted in the T.O., load factors are reduced when an end user exceeds the amount of weight creep the designer factored into the airframe.

The P51 experienced a 14% design weight growth over it's operational lifecycle.

All the Best,

Crumpp

PF_Coastie
05-13-2008, 04:56 AM
I think you will find that it is not elevator only that rips the wings off. It is the combination of Aileron and elevator. If you were to pull straight up on that dive then rolled over to re-acquire the bandit, the wing would not have broken. But the combination of rolling to the left and pulling is what broke the wing.

I can pull out of dives with good authority at very high speeds if I use elevator only. But the slightest aileron input during the pull out will result in wing loss.

SeaFireLIV
05-13-2008, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
P51 wing loss is still over done IMHO.

Now I know I've just invited plagues of locusts etc.. on me for saying this, but the simple fact remains that in our little simulated world we have no "seat of the pants" feel of anything. A real P51 pilot would feel in his controls and in the airframe in general if things were getting close to the edge. Some lee way must be given for the lack of tactile inputs.

And in any case wing loss in real aircraft was no where near as prevalent as it is in the sim. Mostly limited to one block of early production P51Ds because of faulty gear door locking mechanisms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I`m no aircraft expert, but in the case of `feel` perhaps using a Sidewinder Force Feedback would help. It`s excellent for conveying info when riding on the `edge`.

ElAurens
05-13-2008, 05:39 AM
I guess this is one of those times when I must disagree Seafire. I used to use FFB when I first started. I found it's canned responses to be, well, cannned. And my shooting improved immensely when I swithched to a CH.

And I could not allow myself to buy a piece of kit that has no support and a very limited supply of replacements. I knkow you guys that use the MS FFB sticks worship them, but I'm just as sold on my CH HOTAS.

And don't you find it interesting, that the reports of P51 wing breakage can be spouted chapter and verse, and yet the very well known poor ground handling of the entire Bf109 series has never once been addressed? I'm not trying to divert here, just showing an example of why so many American flyers seem so upset.

Aaron_GT
05-13-2008, 05:56 AM
Ground handling could be improved across the board. The 109 is probably too easy, but then the Ensign Eliminator (F4U) is also relatively docile in the game. Even the P51 was reputed to have some quirks in its ground handling with ground loops being entirely possible, which is also not present in the game. It's a general issue, so the 109s are being let off to the same extent that many planes are. But then the same sort of thing is true of the P51 - the wings come off when any plane hits 15G. In reality that's probably generous for some of the biplanes, but then you can't pull 15G on those anyway.

Stoner_109
05-13-2008, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:And don't you find it interesting, that the reports of P51 wing breakage can be spouted chapter and verse, and yet the very well known poor ground handling of the entire Bf109 series has never once been addressed? I'm not trying to divert here, just showing an example of why so many American flyers seem so upset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Me 109 G-6/R6 (with wing cannon pods):
"The forward view for taxying was terrible but at least the aircraft was easily steerable owing to its positive toe pedal-operated wheel brakes, and using 15 deg of flap and 1,3 ata boost the take-off was commendably short and certainly superior to that of the Spitfire IX in distance of run. The strong swing to port could easily be held on rudder, but it was advisable to raise the tail as quickly as possible owing to the poor forward view." - Eric Brown </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

?

Bearcat99
05-13-2008, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I guess this is one of those times when I must disagree Seafire. I used to use FFB when I first started. I found it's canned responses to be, well, cannned. And my shooting improved immensely when I swithched to a CH.

And I could not allow myself to buy a piece of kit that has no support and a very limited supply of replacements. I knkow you guys that use the MS FFB sticks worship them, but I'm just as sold on my CH HOTAS.

And don't you find it interesting, that the reports of P51 wing breakage can be spouted chapter and verse, and yet the very well known poor ground handling of the entire Bf109 series has never once been addressed? I'm not trying to divert here, just showing an example of why so many American flyers seem so upset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That last point is very good El.. and something I have been wondering about for years since particularly in the 109s... the ground handling was notoriously deadly.. as for the P-51... it is rare that I snap a wing anymore .. I have increased the dead zone and filtering on my stick setup .. and I never make large movements at high speeds... I try to look down the road so to speak to judge whatever maneuver I am going to make.. long shallow turns be they in the vertical or horizontal or any point in between are IMO best done as shallowly as possible.. the one thing that does still kill me though with the whole wing thing.. is usually if I am chasing a bandid and my wing breaks off.. the bandid may even be going faster andtighter than me... without a blip... I think the sound of rivets popping might help with that... catastrophic wing failure with absolutely no warning was rare. Yeager used to infuriate his ground crew because he often brought his ship back with popped rivets and structural damage because he constantly flew at the edge of the envelope.

SeaFireLIV
05-13-2008, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I guess this is one of those times when I must disagree Seafire. I used to use FFB when I first started. I found it's canned responses to be, well, cannned. And my shooting improved immensely when I swithched to a CH.

And I could not allow myself to buy a piece of kit that has no support and a very limited supply of replacements. I knkow you guys that use the MS FFB sticks worship them, but I'm just as sold on my CH HOTAS.

And don't you find it interesting, that the reports of P51 wing breakage can be spouted chapter and verse, and yet the very well known poor ground handling of the entire Bf109 series has never once been addressed? I'm not trying to divert here, just showing an example of why so many American flyers seem so upset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sidewinder has been great for my air flying on the edge and shooting, but, you make a very fair point. Bearcat also has a good idea about having rivets start to pop or heavy creaking as a warning.

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 07:16 AM
He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I guess this is one of those times when I must disagree Seafire. I used to use FFB when I first started. I found it's canned responses to be, well, cannned. And my shooting improved immensely when I swithched to a CH.

And I could not allow myself to buy a piece of kit that has no support and a very limited supply of replacements. I knkow you guys that use the MS FFB sticks worship them, but I'm just as sold on my CH HOTAS.

And don't you find it interesting, that the reports of P51 wing breakage can be spouted chapter and verse, and yet the very well known poor ground handling of the entire Bf109 series has never once been addressed? I'm not trying to divert here, just showing an example of why so many American flyers seem so upset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never found MSFF sticks responces canned as you say. Stalling shutters seemed to come on pretty progressivly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

gun shake was another matter..

Xiolablu3
05-13-2008, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stoner_109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:And don't you find it interesting, that the reports of P51 wing breakage can be spouted chapter and verse, and yet the very well known poor ground handling of the entire Bf109 series has never once been addressed? I'm not trying to divert here, just showing an example of why so many American flyers seem so upset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Me 109 G-6/R6 (with wing cannon pods):
"The forward view for taxying was terrible but at least the aircraft was easily steerable owing to its positive toe pedal-operated wheel brakes, and using 15 deg of flap and 1,3 ata boost the take-off was commendably short and certainly superior to that of the Spitfire IX in distance of run. The strong swing to port could easily be held on rudder, but it was advisable to raise the tail as quickly as possible owing to the poor forward view." - Eric Brown </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svK5Xs76R4&feature=related

berg417448
05-13-2008, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shedding wings wasn't just a possibility in the P-51, it was a possibility in many aircraft.Some examples of 109s losing wings or other parts:

1. Major Arthur F. Jeffrey, 25 December 1944, 479th FG:

"On the way down I observed the other Me 109 break to pieces after he had dived almost straight down for 10,000 feet. I had not fired on him, nor did I see any other Allied A/C attacking, so the E/A must have exceeded the stress limits in the dive."



2. While flying a Me-109F Wilhelm Balthasar lost his life when he was attacked by a Spitfire during a test flight. Making an evasive maneuver, his wings broke away and Balthasar was killed when his plane hit the ground.



3. Gustav Sprick was killed when he performed a split-S maneuver. The right wing of his Bf 109 collapsed and he crashed.



4. USAF P-51 pilot W. Konantz chased after a Me-109G :

"...At 10,000 feet I initiated a 4 G pullout and the Me-109 started to pull out at about the same time. But before he had raised his nose more than thirty degrees, his right wing ripped off through the wheel well and he spun into the ground in a matter of seconds. He had no time to get out and was still aboard when the 109 impacted and exploded in a wooded area. Just before I started my pullout II glanced at the airspeed indicator and saw the needle on 600 miles per hour, ninety five per hour over the redline speed of 505."


5. Lt. John D. Stearns, 12 September 1944, 352nd FG "He started to pull out and both of his wings came off leaving a trail of spray and pieces."

6.
Capt. Henry B. Kucheman, 24 April 1944, 355th FG Three (3) Me 109's destroyed. "I was doing well over the 600 mark when the ship I was following attempted to roll to the left but his elevator pulled off first and finally his entire tail assembly tore off."

7

1st Lt. R. W. Priest, 2 November 1944, 355th FG "The right wing of the E/A was coming apart from the force of the dive. I glanced at the airspeed and I was indicating 620 miles per hour."

SeaFireLIV
05-13-2008, 07:42 AM
I know for a fact that many Russian planes will shed their wings at a high speed dive, and sooner than the German aircraft it`s cahsing...

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 07:49 AM
From all the german pilot accounts about flying the 109 and their experiance with it those "quotes" are highly dubious. I notice no german pilots are quoted btw.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
05-13-2008, 08:06 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Sprick

'At the beginning of world war ІІ, Sprick was posted to JG 26 on 23 September 1939.Leutnant Sprick shot down his first enemy aircraft on 10 May 1940, a Dutch Fokker T-5 twin-engined bomber over Breda during Battle of France. Sprick was very successful during the French campaign having accrued nine victories by the fall of France. However, on 14 June he was shot down, near Evreux, by RAF Hurricane fighters after claiming one of their number. He gained 11 victories in the Battle of Britain. He was awarded the Ritterkreuz on 1 October after gaining his 20th victory. By the end of 1940 he had recorded 24 victories. During engaged in a dogfighting the right wing of his Bf 109 F-2 collapsed and he plunged to his death near Holque, France.'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Balthasar

....Wilhelm Balthasar was killed only a day later during an aerial combat with RAF fighters over Aire, France. As he was diving violently in his Bf 109 F-4, the wing of his aircraft malfunctioned and he crashed to his death near St Omer....

berg417448
05-13-2008, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
From all the german pilot accounts about flying the 109 and their experiance with it those "quotes" are highly dubious. I notice no german pilots are quoted btw.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you've forgotten this?


Flying Limitations of the Me 109 G (from: Technical Instructions of the Generalluftzeugmeister, Berlin, 28th August 1942.) Reference Me 109 - wing breakages. Owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages in Me 109 aircraft attention is drawn to the following:

(1) The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data:

Up to 3 km (9,842 ft.) 750 km/h. (466 m.p.h.)

At 5 km (16,404 ft) 700 km/h. (435 m.p.h.)

At 7 km (22,965 ft) 575 km/h. (357 m.p.h.)

At 9 km (29,527 ft) 450 km/h. (280 m.p.h.)

At 11 km (36,089 ft) 400 km/h. (248 m.p.h.)

These limitations are valid for the time being for all building series including the Me 109 G. A corresponding notice is to be placed upon all air-speed indicators in aircraft.

(2) Yawing in a dive leads to high one-sided wing stresses which, under certain circumstances, the wing tip cannot support. When a yawing condition is recognised the dive is to be broken off without exercising force. In a flying condition of yawing and turning at the same time correction must be made with the rudder and not the ailerons. The condition of wing tips is to be examined and checked with TAGL. Bf 109 Nos. 5/41 and 436/41. (3) Unintentional unlocking of the undercarriage in a dive leads also - especially if only one side unlocks - to high wing stresses. Observation and the carrying out of TAGL. No. 11/42 and the following numbers is, therefore specially important. Note. Trouble has been experienced owing to undercarriage unlocking in a dive and a modification has been brought out to prevent this. .......The dive speed limits listed above are also to be found in Vorläufige

Fluggenehmigung BF 109 G-2 and G-6 Dive limitations from: Bf 109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift, June 1943 edition

Dive: Adjust trim in such a way that the airplane can be held in a dive. The elevator forces and tailplane loads become great at high speeds. The tailplane adjustment must work perfectly; otherwise shifting of the tailplane is possible.

Sturzflug: Trimming so einstellen daß das Flugzeug durch Drücken im Sturzflug gehalten werden kann. Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß. Hemmung der Flossen verstellung muß einwandfrei arbeiten; sonst ist Selbst verstellung der Flosse möglich.

Maximum diving speed 750 km/h. Hard aileron manipulation while diving leads to failure, particularly when pulling out.
Höchstzulässige Sturzfluggeschwindigkeit 750 km/h. Harte querruder betätigung im Sturz und besonders beim Abfangen führt zum Bruch.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 08:14 AM
I guess you haven't seen this?

Me 109 G:
"- How fast could you go with it? How fast did you dare to fly in a dive, what was the limit?
It was ... 720 (kilometers/hour), if I remember right. You weren't supposed to exceed it but we did it many times. And as the air was thin up there, so we often had to go vertical when escorting a photographing plane."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

"- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 loosing its wings from his experience or others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never worried about loosing a wing in any form of combat."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Me 109 F/G:
"- What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pulls it out of the dive."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Xiolablu3
05-13-2008, 08:15 AM
Any planes wings could fail in a hard dive, its not just limited to the P51, however obviously planes which pick up speed well in a dive, like the P51 and Bf109 will be more prone to it than the slower diving planes, purely because they reach higher speeds quicker in a dive..

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
From all the german pilot accounts about flying the 109 and their experiance with it those "quotes" are highly dubious. I notice no german pilots are quoted btw.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you've forgotten this?


Flying Limitations of the Me 109 G (from: Technical Instructions of the Generalluftzeugmeister, Berlin, 28th August 1942.) Reference Me 109 - wing breakages. Owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages in Me 109 aircraft attention is drawn to the following:

(1) The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data:

Up to 3 km (9,842 ft.) 750 km/h. (466 m.p.h.)

At 5 km (16,404 ft) 700 km/h. (435 m.p.h.)

At 7 km (22,965 ft) 575 km/h. (357 m.p.h.)

At 9 km (29,527 ft) 450 km/h. (280 m.p.h.)

At 11 km (36,089 ft) 400 km/h. (248 m.p.h.)

These limitations are valid for the time being for all building series including the Me 109 G. A corresponding notice is to be placed upon all air-speed indicators in aircraft.

(2) Yawing in a dive leads to high one-sided wing stresses which, under certain circumstances, the wing tip cannot support. When a yawing condition is recognised the dive is to be broken off without exercising force. In a flying condition of yawing and turning at the same time correction must be made with the rudder and not the ailerons. The condition of wing tips is to be examined and checked with TAGL. Bf 109 Nos. 5/41 and 436/41. (3) Unintentional unlocking of the undercarriage in a dive leads also - especially if only one side unlocks - to high wing stresses. Observation and the carrying out of TAGL. No. 11/42 and the following numbers is, therefore specially important. Note. Trouble has been experienced owing to undercarriage unlocking in a dive and a modification has been brought out to prevent this. .......The dive speed limits listed above are also to be found in Vorläufige

Fluggenehmigung BF 109 G-2 and G-6 Dive limitations from: Bf 109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift, June 1943 edition

Dive: Adjust trim in such a way that the airplane can be held in a dive. The elevator forces and tailplane loads become great at high speeds. The tailplane adjustment must work perfectly; otherwise shifting of the tailplane is possible.

Sturzflug: Trimming so einstellen daß das Flugzeug durch Drücken im Sturzflug gehalten werden kann. Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß. Hemmung der Flossen verstellung muß einwandfrei arbeiten; sonst ist Selbst verstellung der Flosse möglich.

Maximum diving speed 750 km/h. Hard aileron manipulation while diving leads to failure, particularly when pulling out.
Höchstzulässige Sturzfluggeschwindigkeit 750 km/h. Harte querruder betätigung im Sturz und besonders beim Abfangen führt zum Bruch.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

psss... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif this site you quote is a well known Spitfire Fan boy/ hate 109 site.

The wings could withstand 12 G's. I don't call this weak. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

berg417448
05-13-2008, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I guess you haven't seen this?

Me 109 G:
"- How fast could you go with it? How fast did you dare to fly in a dive, what was the limit?
It was ... 720 (kilometers/hour), if I remember right. You weren't supposed to exceed it but we did it many times. And as the air was thin up there, so we often had to go vertical when escorting a photographing plane."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

"- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 loosing its wings from his experience or others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never worried about loosing a wing in any form of combat."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Me 109 F/G:
"- What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pulls it out of the dive."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy to find pilots of many other aircraft who didn't lose their wings in high speed dives. Give up the trolling. no one is buying it.

berg417448
05-13-2008, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
From all the german pilot accounts about flying the 109 and their experiance with it those "quotes" are highly dubious. I notice no german pilots are quoted btw.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you've forgotten this?


Flying Limitations of the Me 109 G (from: Technical Instructions of the Generalluftzeugmeister, Berlin, 28th August 1942.) Reference Me 109 - wing breakages. Owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages in Me 109 aircraft attention is drawn to the following:

(1) The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data:

Up to 3 km (9,842 ft.) 750 km/h. (466 m.p.h.)

At 5 km (16,404 ft) 700 km/h. (435 m.p.h.)

At 7 km (22,965 ft) 575 km/h. (357 m.p.h.)

At 9 km (29,527 ft) 450 km/h. (280 m.p.h.)

At 11 km (36,089 ft) 400 km/h. (248 m.p.h.)

These limitations are valid for the time being for all building series including the Me 109 G. A corresponding notice is to be placed upon all air-speed indicators in aircraft.

(2) Yawing in a dive leads to high one-sided wing stresses which, under certain circumstances, the wing tip cannot support. When a yawing condition is recognised the dive is to be broken off without exercising force. In a flying condition of yawing and turning at the same time correction must be made with the rudder and not the ailerons. The condition of wing tips is to be examined and checked with TAGL. Bf 109 Nos. 5/41 and 436/41. (3) Unintentional unlocking of the undercarriage in a dive leads also - especially if only one side unlocks - to high wing stresses. Observation and the carrying out of TAGL. No. 11/42 and the following numbers is, therefore specially important. Note. Trouble has been experienced owing to undercarriage unlocking in a dive and a modification has been brought out to prevent this. .......The dive speed limits listed above are also to be found in Vorläufige

Fluggenehmigung BF 109 G-2 and G-6 Dive limitations from: Bf 109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift, June 1943 edition

Dive: Adjust trim in such a way that the airplane can be held in a dive. The elevator forces and tailplane loads become great at high speeds. The tailplane adjustment must work perfectly; otherwise shifting of the tailplane is possible.

Sturzflug: Trimming so einstellen daß das Flugzeug durch Drücken im Sturzflug gehalten werden kann. Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß. Hemmung der Flossen verstellung muß einwandfrei arbeiten; sonst ist Selbst verstellung der Flosse möglich.

Maximum diving speed 750 km/h. Hard aileron manipulation while diving leads to failure, particularly when pulling out.
Höchstzulässige Sturzfluggeschwindigkeit 750 km/h. Harte querruder betätigung im Sturz und besonders beim Abfangen führt zum Bruch.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

psss... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif this site you quote is a well known Spitfire Fan boy/ hate 109 site.

The wings could withstand 12 G's. I don't call this weak. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your Troll foo is weak.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-13-2008, 08:23 AM
We will see a lot more collapsing wings, once we have damage causing material fatigue in BoB. But even without that, I got a lot of collapsing wings, when I flew 109s in a dogfight.


Of course I just didn't say, that it was always due to enemy fire. But well, nobody said so in the quotes above, so it must be weak wings on the 109.

I really wonder, though, why all these statements were made by pilots who were fighting the 109s. Must be pretty boring to stay behind the planes, not fire a single shot and waiting for their wings to come off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 08:24 AM
It's true and well known here except by you apparently..

want more info..?

The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests. Slightly modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing. Compare this to Supermarine Spitfire, which achieved dive speeds well above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one occasion. P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
- Source: Radinger/Otto/Schick: "Messerschmitt Me 109", volumes 1 and 2, Eric Brown: "Testing for Combat".
- (Comment: it seems Eric Brown's analysis is flawed, though, and test pilot Herb Fisher performed 150+ such dives: an example of a 0.79 dive. Several of the dives achieved Mach 0.83. Sources: Herb Fisher, Herb Fisher Jr., and Curtiss-Wright.
- Versuchs-Bericht Nr 109 05 E 43 - Date 15.4.43
This original German test document refers to dive tests of 109s with the tall tail. Result of this test was that the new tail reduced highspeed diving ozillations (which sometimes appeard with the old tail). More interesting is the fact, that in this tests, which had not the aim to estimate the highest mach number or to test the structure, they reached
max. Mach 0,805@7.0km
max. TAS 906km/h@5.8km
max. IAS 737km/h@4.5km
Even more interesting is the fact that they tried different positions of the trimming. With the wrong trimset - the one for cruising at high altitude it was not possible to pull out of the dive just by using the stick. They needed to use the trimwheel to recover the plane from the dive. This happened in such violent manner that the testpilot had to push the stick foreward to be not blacked out...
If the trim was set to +1.15? it was possible to recover without using the trimwheel - both flightpaths, with and without the trimwheel, are very similar. So even with the concrete stick the limitating factor seems to be the pilot.
Also interesting in the dive the canopy iced, also the mechanism of the trim, so it was not possible to set it smooth, but in \"jumps\", but it was still adjustable...
- Source: Hochgeschwindigkeitsversusche mit Me 109, Messerschmitt AG, Augsburg.

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/..._report/05e43-p1.htm (http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm)

berg417448
05-13-2008, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
We will see a lot more collapsing wings, once we have damage causing material fatigue in BoB. But even without that, I got a lot of collapsing wings, when I flew 109s in a dogfight.


Of course I just didn't say, that it was always due to enemy fire. But well, nobody said so in the quotes above, so it must be weak wings on the 109.

I really wonder, though, why all these statements were made by pilots who were fighting the 109s. Must be pretty boring to stay behind the planes, not fire a single shot and waiting for their wings to come off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said anything about weak wings of the 109? Just like with the P-51 and other aircraft, exceeding the limits will occasionally cause failures of aircraft structure.

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 08:27 AM
Diving - structural rigidity of 109 in dives
- The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests. Slightly modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing. Compare this to Supermarine Spitfire, which achieved dive speeds well above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one occasion. P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
- Source: Radinger/Otto/Schick: "Messerschmitt Me 109", volumes 1 and 2, Eric Brown: "Testing for Combat".
- (Comment: it seems Eric Brown's analysis is flawed, though, and test pilot Herb Fisher performed 150+ such dives: an example of a 0.79 dive. Several of the dives achieved Mach 0.83. Sources: Herb Fisher, Herb Fisher Jr., and Curtiss-Wright.
- Versuchs-Bericht Nr 109 05 E 43 - Date 15.4.43
This original German test document refers to dive tests of 109s with the tall tail. Result of this test was that the new tail reduced highspeed diving ozillations (which sometimes appeard with the old tail). More interesting is the fact, that in this tests, which had not the aim to estimate the highest mach number or to test the structure, they reached
max. Mach 0,805@7.0km
max. TAS 906km/h@5.8km
max. IAS 737km/h@4.5km
Even more interesting is the fact that they tried different positions of the trimming. With the wrong trimset - the one for cruising at high altitude it was not possible to pull out of the dive just by using the stick. They needed to use the trimwheel to recover the plane from the dive. This happened in such violent manner that the testpilot had to push the stick foreward to be not blacked out...
If the trim was set to +1.15? it was possible to recover without using the trimwheel - both flightpaths, with and without the trimwheel, are very similar. So even with the concrete stick the limitating factor seems to be the pilot.
Also interesting in the dive the canopy iced, also the mechanism of the trim, so it was not possible to set it smooth, but in \"jumps\", but it was still adjustable...
- Source: Hochgeschwindigkeitsversusche mit Me 109, Messerschmitt AG, Augsburg.

- 109 didn't "compress" but the elevators became heavy. When adjusting trim the entire horizontal tail plane moved and reduced the force needed to pull out.

Bf 109 D:
"So down we went about 2,000 feet with the air speed indicator amusing itself by adding a lot of big numbers - to a little over 400 mph. A gentle draw back on the control effected recovery from the dive; then up the other side of the hill.
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.

Me 109 E:
"Steep climb at low air speed was one of the standard evasion maneuvres used by the German pilots. Another was to push the stick forward abruptly and bunt into a dive with considerable negative 'g'. The importance of arranging that the engine whould not cut under these circumstances cannot be over-stressed. Speed is picked up quickly in a dive, and if being attacked by an airplane of slightly inferior level performance, this feature can be used with advantage to get out of range. There is no doubt that in the autumn of 1940 the Bf 109E in spite of its faults, was a doughty opponent to set against our own equipment'."
- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.


Me 109 E-4:
"During the VNE dive I achieved an IAS of 660 kmh. The original limit was 750 kmh. I was only limited by the height avalable, not by any feature of the aircraft which was extremerely smooth and stable at 660 kmh."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.

Me 109 G:
"The maximum speed not to be exceeded was 750kmh. Once I was flying above Helsinki as I received a report of Russkies in the South. There was a big Cumulus cloud on my way there but I decided to fly right through. I centered the controls and then something extraordinary happened. I must have involuntarily entered into half-roll and dive. The planes had individual handling characteristics; even though I held the turning indicator in the middle, the plane kept going faster and faster, I pulled the stick, yet the plane went into an ever steeper dive.
In the same time she started rotating, and I came out of the cloud with less than one kilometer of altitude. I started pulling the stick, nothing happened, I checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and nothing happened. I broke into a sweat of agony: now I am going into the sea and cannot help it. I pulled with both hands, groaning and by and by she started recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled, but the surface of the sea approached, I thought I was going to crash. I kept pulling until I saw that I had survived. The distance between me and the sea may have been five meters. I pulled up and found myself on the coast of Estonia.
If I in that situation had used the vertical trim the wings would have been broken off. A minimal trim movement has a strong effect on wings when the speed limit has been exceded. I had 100kmh overspeed! It was out of all limits.
The Messerschmitt's wings were fastened with two bolts. When I saw the construction I had thought that they are strong enough but in this case I was thinking, when are they going to break
- What about the phenomenon called "buffeting" or vibration, was there any?
No, I did not encounter it even in the 850kmh speed."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"- The vertical dive was how to disengage.
Jussi Huotari: That was the remedy.
Antti Tani: That is how I survived when attacking two of them and losing the first round. They had more speed because I was coming from a lower altitude.
It was nothing special, the (Yak-9) planes were climbing and began to turn back. I had planned to get to shoot at them as they have lost their speed in the turn. But I was not in the right position. I turned at them and pulled the nose up - and I lost my speed, I had to turn below them. I had to push the stick to get behind them, and as they dived at me I dived right down. I turned with ailerons a couple of times, and had full power on.
Then I started recovery from the dive, of course in the direction of home, then checked the dials, the reading was eight hundred plus kmh. Then I started pulling the stick, pulled harder as hard as ever: never in my life did I pull so hard. I pulled with right hand and tried to trim the horizontal rudder with my left hand. But it did not budge, as if it had been set in concrete. But by the by the nose began to rise, but terribly slowly. As my angle was about 45 I heard over the radio as Onni Paronen said, "hey lads, look, a Messerschmitt is going in the sea!" I wanted to answer back but I could not afford to do anything put pull with two hands. As soon as I had returned to level flight and had been able to breath normally for a while, I in a way regained consciousness. I pushed the transmitter key and said "not quite". It was a close shave.
- It was so hard that you almost blacked out?
Antti Tani: I felt I was on the edge, pulling as hard as I ever could."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
- Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-6:
After landing Me 109 with damaged rudder trim tab, which shook the rudder heavily in flight:
"Antti Tani: It had to be strong, both the rudder and the pedals, they withstood the damn shaking without any further damage.
Jussi Huotari: The Messerschmitt was a very tough aircraft. You could do vertical dives and the tailplane hang along..."
Antti Tani: But Mäittälä, what happened to him, he lost the tailplane? Mäittälä dived like that, and being a strong man he was able to pull harder than I did. And so the tailplane was ripped off
- The day before a similar dive and recovery had happened to the same plane. Two steep dives in succession and a strong pilot pulling the stick each time, so...
Antti Tani: It certainly was a risky job. It must be that I remember him because I did a dive like that and remembered his tailplane had been ripped off. I, too pulled as hard as I could, because I thought that I am going to die if I don't."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
- Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-6:
"The story of Valte Estama's 109 G-6 getting shot down by a Yak-6 was also an interesting one. Their flight of nine planes was doing high-altitude CAP at 7,000 meters (23,000').
(snip) So it happened that the devil fired at him. One cannon round hit his engine, spilling out oil that caught fire. Estama noticed that it wasn't fuel that leaked or burned, just oil.
He pushed the nose of the plane and throttled up. His feet felt hot, but the fire was extinguished and there was no more smoke. The speedometer went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. He pulled the throttle back, but the stick was stiff and couldn't pull the plane out of the dive. Letting the flaps out little by little gradually lifted the nose. The plane leveled at 1,000 meters (3,300').
Clarification of the escape dive: "It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise, it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a time, (then straightening off with trims).
Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out."
- Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
We had also Lauri Mäittälä, he took (unclear tape), he had to evade and exceeded the speed, and the rudders broke off. He fell in a well in the Isthmus. He was later collected from there, he's now there in Askola cemetery.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"- How fast could you go with it? How fast did you dare to fly in a dive, what was the limit?
It was ... 720 (kilometers/hour), if I remember right. You weren't supposed to exceed it but we did it many times. And as the air was thin up there, so we often had to go vertical when escorting a photographing plane."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

"- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 loosing its wings from his experience or others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never worried about loosing a wing in any form of combat."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Me 109 F/G:
"- What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pulls it out of the dive."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

"During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is would back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator."
- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.

Through the eyes of the enemy - possibly Me 109 G:
"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."
- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.

Through the eyes of the enemy - possibly Me 109 G:
"Thomas L. Hayes, Jr. recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control."
- Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., American P-51 ace, 357th Fighter Group, 8 1/2 victories

Me 109 G:
"Me 109 had good and accurate weapons, but those were the only good points of it. To me, it's unacceptable that somebody had built a fighter plane that couldn't be dived without limits. Me109 had a dive limit of 880km/h - you weren't to exceed it or the plane would break up. Just this happened to Sgt Mäittälä. I (and Pokela) was forced to exceed this limit twice, I can't describe how it felt just to sit in the cockpit waiting, if the plane would break up. I have never gotten rid of that feeling, of being trapped."
-Heimo Lampi, Finnish fighter ace. 13 1/2 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G-2/G-6:
"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "
- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.
Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out. I was all sweaty. At that time the Me's were new to us."
- Did the roll capabilites change?
"Not so much. It got stiffer, but you still could bank."
- Were you still in full control at high speeds, like at 600-700 km/h?
"Yes. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 08:33 AM
Like I said I have read many many accounts of german pilots flying the 109 and them telling about it's strength's and weaknesses but the plane sheading wings or coming apart in mid air wasn't one of them.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"Through the eyes of the enemy - possibly Me 109 G:
"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."
- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.

FatBoyHK
05-13-2008, 08:35 AM
anyone noticed that you can break wing much easier when flying online? Exspecially under bad network condition? I do.

I did some tests a while ago and found that when flying a mustang offline, you need to be REALLY stupid to break your wing above 10000 feet. But when flying online, a 50% stick pull applied suddenly at around 330MPH IAS is all you need.

I thought it has something to do with network latency. I reported this to Oleg in ORR, there were some construcive discussion, but it turned sour quite soon and hence it was locked by admin

berg417448
05-13-2008, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Like I said I have read many many accounts of german pilots flying the 109 and them telling about it's strength's and weaknesses but the plane sheading wings or coming apart in mid air wasn't one of them.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The dead don't talk...just like the P-51 pilots who died when their wings came off.

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Like I said I have read many many accounts of german pilots flying the 109 and them telling about it's strength's and weaknesses but the plane sheading wings or coming apart in mid air wasn't one of them.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The dead don't talk...just like the P-51 pilots who died when their wings came off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh Huh.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
05-13-2008, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:


http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/..._report/05e43-p1.htm (http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The site you quote from is a well known 109 Fanboy, Allied hating site in this community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Stalker, all this argument came from your RIDICULOUS statement

'He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even.'


Just take that back and all this bickering will stop. You made a completely incorrect statement, Berg showed you with evidence that it was wrong, just be a man and take it back, you were wrong - admit it.

ANY plane can lose its wings in a dive or break up in really hard manouvres.

Sirrith
05-13-2008, 08:56 AM
Well, I just amused myself by testing a few planes offline and I noticed something:
a6m5 1943: started losing parts at around 780k/ph, would hold together fine pulling up full stick at 720k/ph
It held together better than the hurricane, which started breaking apart at about 20k/ph lower than the zero, is this normal?

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:


http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/..._report/05e43-p1.htm (http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The site you quote from is a well known 109 Fanboy, Allied hating site in this community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Stalker, all this argument came from your RIDICULOUS statement

'He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even.'


Just take that back and all this bickering will stop. You made a completely incorrect statement, Berg showed you with evidence that it was wrong, just be a man and take it back, you were wrong - admit it.

ANY plane can lose its wings in a dive or break up in really hard manouvres. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely not a rediculous statement. I said they were never known to shed wings in high speed dives. Never heard of it and posted info confirming this statement.

Berg showed nothing of the kind whatsoever. You are the little boy here not I and your silly whiny pandering statement for berg shows it.

BTW, that site has some totally excellent info unlike the "spitperformance" site.

Obviously you can't see the difference in the quality of the two.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-13-2008, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
We will see a lot more collapsing wings, once we have damage causing material fatigue in BoB. But even without that, I got a lot of collapsing wings, when I flew 109s in a dogfight.


Of course I just didn't say, that it was always due to enemy fire. But well, nobody said so in the quotes above, so it must be weak wings on the 109.

I really wonder, though, why all these statements were made by pilots who were fighting the 109s. Must be pretty boring to stay behind the planes, not fire a single shot and waiting for their wings to come off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said anything about weak wings of the 109? Just like with the P-51 and other aircraft, exceeding the limits will occasionally cause failures of aircraft structure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. But a weak wing will come off faster than a stronger one, if both perform a similar maneuver. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 09:17 AM
This article mentions the well known wing weakness of the P-51 in the crash report though this particular crash didn't come from this apparently.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/P-51%2044-13593%20article.htm

At the time of the accident it was suggested that although there was a recognised weakness in the wing of the new P-51D, the actual failure of the structure could have been triggered by the Starboard main undercarriage leg inadvertently lowering into the slipstream at cruising speed and placing immense pressure on the wing spar. However examination of the official crash reports for both incidents clearly places the blame on a weakness in the front wing spar assembly and associated stressed skin structure between "Rib stations 75 to 91.5, i.e. the Gun Bay area. The report on Orth's aircraft does go on to suggest that failure of the retracting/locking system could be a contributory factor, but merely recommends further investigation.

Xiolablu3
05-13-2008, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:


http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/..._report/05e43-p1.htm (http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The site you quote from is a well known 109 Fanboy, Allied hating site in this community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Stalker, all this argument came from your RIDICULOUS statement

'He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even.'


Just take that back and all this bickering will stop. You made a completely incorrect statement, Berg showed you with evidence that it was wrong, just be a man and take it back, you were wrong - admit it.

ANY plane can lose its wings in a dive or break up in really hard manouvres. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely not a rediculous statement. I said they were never known to shed wings in high speed dives. Never heard of it and posted info confirming this statement.

Berg showed nothing of the kind whatsoever. You are the little boy here not I and your silly whiny pandering statement for berg shows it.

BTW, that site has some totally excellent info unlike the "spitperformance" site.

Obviously you can't see the difference in the quality of the two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't even know Berg, but I can see when someone is right or wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Your statement was clearly wrong/trolling, but you are too small minded to just admit it after people posted info showing it was false.

I think its obvious to anyone who reads the thread whos right/whos wrong/whos the troll, so I will leave it here.

DKoor
05-13-2008, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Stalker, all this argument came from your RIDICULOUS statement

'He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even.'


Just take that back and all this bickering will stop. You made a completely incorrect statement, Berg showed you with evidence that it was wrong, just be a man and take it back, you were wrong - admit it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There is no chance he was making it serious there, you guys just bought it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ANY plane can lose its wings in a dive or break up in really hard manouvres. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, that's true!

Problems caused on 'field' however will show that while maneuvering, some aircraft (in game) are more prone to lost their wings at some speeds, while some others cannot lose them whatsoever at those speeds even with maximum elevator trim!

Xiolablu3
05-13-2008, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Stalker, all this argument came from your RIDICULOUS statement

'He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even.'


Just take that back and all this bickering will stop. You made a completely incorrect statement, Berg showed you with evidence that it was wrong, just be a man and take it back, you were wrong - admit it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There is no chance he was making it serious there, you guys just bought it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DOnt be surprised that he really believes these things Dkoor, I have seen him make even more ridiculous statements about Bf109's before.

JG53Frankyboy
05-13-2008, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sirrith:
Well, I just amused myself by testing a few planes offline and I noticed something:
a6m5 1943: started losing parts at around 780k/ph, would hold together fine pulling up full stick at 720k/ph
It held together better than the hurricane, which started breaking apart at about 20k/ph lower than the zero, is this normal? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, at least in game.
try to get the tool "il2compare" - in that you can check easily the max divespeeds of the planes.

and historicalyy, nothing to worry about i guess.
IIRC the Hurricane never faced a newer version from the Zero than the A6M2 Model 21 - and that is breaking earlier than the later Model 52 and than the Hurricane too btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
05-13-2008, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
the one thing that does still kill me though with the whole wing thing.. is usually if I am chasing a bandid and my wing breaks off.. the bandid may even be going faster and tighter than me... without a blip... I think the sound of rivets popping might help with that... catastrophic wing failure with absolutely no warning was rare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My opinion is that game may not consider much when structure itself is stressed, but more so the (calculated) deflection on elevator!

For instance the deflection I made (on that track) didn't lasted longer than 1sec. (I don't know how many G's were there, some guys with device link knowledge may answer that perhaps), 2:21-2:22 and in that time my wing came off... now if the turn (and buffeting) lasted for 3-4 seconds and as you said there were some previous 'warnings' this would never happen to me.
I would ease on the stick.

However other than knowing the game I never can't prevent 1sec. wing breakage in maneuver.

Suffice is to say that I was really surprised to see that... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:


http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/..._report/05e43-p1.htm (http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The site you quote from is a well known 109 Fanboy, Allied hating site in this community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Stalker, all this argument came from your RIDICULOUS statement

'He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even.'


Just take that back and all this bickering will stop. You made a completely incorrect statement, Berg showed you with evidence that it was wrong, just be a man and take it back, you were wrong - admit it.

ANY plane can lose its wings in a dive or break up in really hard manouvres. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely not a rediculous statement. I said they were never known to shed wings in high speed dives. Never heard of it and posted info confirming this statement.

Berg showed nothing of the kind whatsoever. You are the little boy here not I and your silly whiny pandering statement for berg shows it.

BTW, that site has some totally excellent info unlike the "spitperformance" site.

Obviously you can't see the difference in the quality of the two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't even know Berg, but I can see when someone is right or wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
He..he..he.. Me-109's were never known to shed wings in hard manauvers or even very steep high speed dives. Many many pilots crashed landed them hard and walked away with minor injuries even. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Your statement was clearly wrong/trolling, but you are too small minded to just admit it after people posted info showing it was false.

I think its obvious to anyone who reads the thread whos right/whos wrong/whos the troll, so I will leave it here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is info posted both ways that support both conclusions. "Clearly wrong?" Hardly. "Small minded"? Apparently.. if I don't support the other side of those conclusions...

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 09:48 AM
There is apparently documented weaknesses in the P-51 wing. There is no such thing in the Me-109. Totally remarkable in a plane where the wings were detachable for easy transportation!

But then again I am "small minded". How would I know? My words mean nothing as do my posted quotes from actual Me-109 pilots.

JtD
05-13-2008, 09:59 AM
They still lost a wing once in a while. For every mechanical structure, there is a limit. And when it comes to dynamic loads, all limits can be exceeded rather easily, even with just minor efforts. And in high speed dives, it usually are dynamics that matter most.

Xiolablu3
05-13-2008, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
They still lost a wing once in a while. For every mechanical structure, there is a limit. And when it comes to dynamic loads, all limits can be exceeded rather easily, even with just minor efforts. And in high speed dives, it usually are dynamics that matter most. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

The arguments would not have been happening if Stalker said 'It was infrequent that the Me109 lost a wing' or something similar, but to say it NEVER happened is wrong.

M_Gunz
05-13-2008, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Were you closing on the 109 while this was going on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, but very slowly... I'd say difference in speed was negligible in spite of him being shot in the engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Try keeping the P-51 trimmed just a little nose heavy at high speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thx will try next time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I forgot to ask, are you running with extra filter on your stick settings? Like halfway or so.

Cause if you ain't then try it for just two minutes in P-51. See what it does to your dive
pullouts, not a miracle but... when you're setting filter, watch the calibration dots while
you move the stick around; there's no more instant hard full deflection with lot of filter
but you still get the full as quickly as you set filter for. If you move the stick at the
speeds you see planes in flying combat footage then the filter delay is practically nil.

DKoor
05-13-2008, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Sprick

'At the beginning of world war ІІ, Sprick was posted to JG 26 on 23 September 1939.Leutnant Sprick shot down his first enemy aircraft on 10 May 1940, a Dutch Fokker T-5 twin-engined bomber over Breda during Battle of France. Sprick was very successful during the French campaign having accrued nine victories by the fall of France. However, on 14 June he was shot down, near Evreux, by RAF Hurricane fighters after claiming one of their number. He gained 11 victories in the Battle of Britain. He was awarded the Ritterkreuz on 1 October after gaining his 20th victory. By the end of 1940 he had recorded 24 victories. During engaged in a dogfighting the right wing of his Bf 109 F-2 collapsed and he plunged to his death near Holque, France.'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Balthasar

....Wilhelm Balthasar was killed only a day later during an aerial combat with RAF fighters over Aire, France. As he was diving violently in his Bf 109 F-4, the wing of his aircraft malfunctioned and he crashed to his death near St Omer.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Bf-109F2/4 series in some cases was prone to wing failure. I just read the story about Balthasar and how he get killed in his Friedrich.

However those failures were accounted for design failure (need to strengthen the wings; tailplane unit was already strengthened with Bf-109F1).

M_Gunz
05-13-2008, 10:30 AM
Wing failure during combat may be indication of 303 termite infestation too.

FatCat_99
05-13-2008, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
anyone noticed that you can break wing much easier when flying online? Exspecially under bad network condition? I do.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That happen because you are more likely to experience micro freezes in online gaming. All FM calculations are performed on your PC and only performance of your PC affect calculation.

What happen to you is that you give command to flight control and experience freeze in next moment.

When that happen game remember your last control and apply it through all of the time while your PC was frozen.

For example if you were shooting 1 second before freeze and you experienced 1 second freeze game will count that as 2 second burst despite the fact that you didn't have control of your plane for 1 second.

So if your PC perform poorly online what you think is just a quick pull on the stick can be read as hamfisting by the game.

That's especially dangerous in planes like P-51 where you need small amount of stick travel to perform full travel of flight control.

Basically P-51 in game have too sensitive controls and you can reduce stick curve for elevator to 60-80 max and still have total control of your plane.


FC

DKoor
05-13-2008, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
When that happen game remember your last control and apply it through all of the time while your PC was frozen.

For example if you were shooting 1 second before freeze and you experienced 1 second freeze game will count that as 2 second burst despite the fact that you didn't have control of your plane for 1 second. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>When I sometimes get freeze in a firing solution, I'm still holding the trigger hoping I'll 'find' the bandit http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif .

I see that I'm wrong, therefore I can easily let the stick go during freeze http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Daiichidoku
05-13-2008, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
For example if you were shooting 1 second before freeze and you experienced 1 second freeze game will count that as 2 second burst despite the fact that you didn't have control of your plane for 1 second.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the worst is when you pull trigger just as you geta freeze....i have, on occasion, come out of the freeze to find my guns STILL firing (and wont stop until trigger touched again or ammo runs out), despite only tapping trigger for .5 sec

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Bearcat99
05-13-2008, 05:29 PM
Any aiorcraft will shed it's wings if flown beyond it's structural integrity.. and as great as the German planes were.. they did have limits.. but from all accounts I read thier major flaw was the narrow landing gear, which killed a lot of German pilots... but isn't this thread called...

P-51D paper wings or.... ?

VW-IceFire
05-13-2008, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We probably don't agree that often even when I don't speak up about it but I definitely agree with you there. Its a bit overdone...P-51 gets the limelight but a few other types like the YP-80 do it just as easily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can do it in a number of planes. I've done it in the Fw190D before now. Hit 15G and the wings come off. The P51 simply has more effective elevators than most so it is easier to pull 15G. The subject has been done to death with outputs from DeviceLink. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh I know...it happens in all of them its just the P-51 is so very easy to do it in. The YP-80 is another culprit. The D-9 is harder to do it in as is the Tempest although I've done it in both of them.

The original modeling of the P-51 in-game didn't have such a twitchy elevator at 700kph. Didn't happen nearly as much at that point of course allot has changed since then.

I just am really really careful in the Mustang at high speed. The slightest movement seems to have potential to induce the failure. I'm not convinced that I can load 15G on a airframe with a slight flick of the stick. Is that possible? Shouldn't it take time for that sort of thing to happen or can it really load on that quickly?

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 06:44 PM
I believe the 109 gets away with it more because the elevator surfaces appears to be smaller and one couldn't pull as many g's as fast as the Mustang. It was stressed to 12 g's though which is pretty darn high IMO.

but don't tell anyone.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
05-13-2008, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is that possible? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, G is a function of speed and AoA.
A highly-effective elevator will get you high Gs in no time.
As long as there's no considerable lock-up, planes are in danger of over-Ging the airframe.

Thatswhy you have Va - maneuver speed (speed at which full control-deflections are still allowed; anything above has deflection-limits).

Va is precisely the point where lift at max AoA hits the value that enables you to pull max G of your airframe.

Below that speed, stick fully aft will get you into a stall, or at lower Gs than Gmax.
Above that speed, stick fully aft will physically "work" on your airframe (bend panels, pop rivets, ) - once you're above the safety-factor of 1.5, you're in danger of really messing up the a/c.

VW-IceFire
05-13-2008, 08:52 PM
Interesting...ok so I think that answers my question. Its just so jarring when it happens to me. I often don't even expect it.

@stalkervision: The 109s elevator is so unresponsive at high speed so there is absolutely no way a 109 can break its wing by over stressing...at least not in the game. Its more likely not to be able to pull out in time and go splat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
05-13-2008, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Interesting...ok so I think that answers my question. Its just so jarring when it happens to me. I often don't even expect it.

@stalkervision: The 109s elevator is so unresponsive at high speed so there is absolutely no way a 109 can break its wing by over stressing...at least not in the game. Its more likely not to be able to pull out in time and go splat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The mig 21 is similar to the 109 in one way did you know that?

The controls are not boosted so there is no way or at least it's very very hard to exceed the Mig's structiral limits. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
05-14-2008, 04:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109s elevator is so unresponsive at high speed so there is absolutely no way a 109 can break its wing by over stressing...at least not in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the designer taking care of the pilot thru stability and control.

Any aircraft can experience structural failure if it's limits were exceeded.

The P51 experienced more design weight growth than the original design intended. Anytime you add weight, you lower the load limits.

All the best,

Crumpp

stalkervision
05-14-2008, 04:49 AM
This is true kettenhunde. The P-51 was altered to take a lot of extra fuel then the original designer intended for one thing.

DKoor
05-14-2008, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Any aiorcraft will shed it's wings if flown beyond it's structural integrity.. and as great as the German planes were.. they did have limits.. but from all accounts I read thier major flaw was the narrow landing gear, which killed a lot of German pilots... but isn't this thread called...

P-51D paper wings or.... ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Check out just how many wings in game you can shred at 635km/h at deck. With no trim involved. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
First this isn't about structural strength etc., this is about P-51D losing wings at the slightest sign of non-trimmed turn (or better, should I say 'change of direction' instead of 'turn' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif ) at 635km/h, I believe that is exclusive P-51 "feature" in game. And I will continue to believe so until someone post a honest track that will show otherwise.
And the best of it all I haven't intended this to be inflammatory thread.

Also I'm using this opportunity to point at the;
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">narrow landing gear (Bf-109) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>At this point I'm really interested on the dimensions of that narrow landing gear, since Spitfire landing gear sure as hell looks narrow to me.

DKoor
05-14-2008, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The original modeling of the P-51 in-game didn't have such a twitchy elevator at 700kph. Didn't happen nearly as much at that point of course allot has changed since then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1 From what I remember, playing AEP it was a fine machine... more than that.
Then again, a lot of time has passed since, so my memory may fail on me http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/crazy.gif .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I just am really really careful in the Mustang at high speed. The slightest movement seems to have potential to induce the failure. I'm not convinced that I can load 15G on a airframe with a slight flick of the stick. <span class="ev_code_red">Is that possible?</span> Shouldn't it take time for that sort of thing to happen or can it really load on that quickly? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I painted first key words in red and bolded second... first, it really looks bogus to me, second it took roughly one second of real time to lose wings untrimmed at 635km/h. As it may be seen on the track.
My personal opinion is that it is not possible IRL unless aircraft truly doesn't have some kind of structure problems (not design problems but structure, micro fractures, production flaw etc.).

And the best of it all... if it happened to me at 635km/h (untrimmed), I'm almost willing to place a bet that it can happen to P-51D on even less speed! It is quite small chance that I hit the very minimum wing-loss speed.

Blutarski2004
05-14-2008, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109s elevator is so unresponsive at high speed so there is absolutely no way a 109 can break its wing by over stressing...at least not in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the designer taking care of the pilot thru stability and control.

Any aircraft can experience structural failure if it's limits were exceeded.

The P51 experienced more design weight growth than the original design intended. Anytime you add weight, you lower the load limits.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... IIRC, one of the major factors in airframe failure during high-speed dives was yaw. I recall reading SOMEWHERE that 109 pilot instructions cautioned about this.

stalkervision
05-14-2008, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The original modeling of the P-51 in-game didn't have such a twitchy elevator at 700kph. Didn't happen nearly as much at that point of course allot has changed since then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1 From what I remember, playing AEP it was a fine machine... more than that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I just am really really careful in the Mustang at high speed. The slightest movement seems to have potential to induce the failure. I'm not convinced that I can load 15G on a airframe with a slight flick of the stick. <span class="ev_code_red">Is that possible?</span> Shouldn't it take time for that sort of thing to happen or can it really load on that quickly? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I painted first key words in red and bolded second... first, it really looks bogus to me, second it took roughly one second of real time to lose wings untrimmed at 635km/h. As it may be seen on the track.
My personal opinion is that it is not possible IRL unless aircraft truly doesn't have some kind of structure problems (not design problems but structure, micro fractures, production flaw etc.).

And the best of it all... if it happened to me at 635km/h (untrimmed), I'm almost willing to place a bet that it can happen to P-51D on even less speed! It is quite small chance that I hit the very minimum wing-loss speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO maddox made more then a few mistakes with aircraft dive speeds. Hope in SOW he corrects these blunders.

FatCat_99
05-14-2008, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
First this isn't about structural strength etc., this is about P-51D losing wings at the slightest sign of non-trimmed turn (or better, should I say 'change of direction' instead of 'turn' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif ) at 635km/h, I believe that is exclusive P-51 "feature" in game. And I will continue to believe so until someone post a honest track that will show otherwise.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
P51 doing wild turn and not losing the wing
Track:
http://rapidshare.com/files/114815775/P51.trk

Chart1
This chart show relations between speed, G force and altitude. Altitude values are divided by 100 to make chart easier to read.
http://img167.imagevenue.com/loc1089/th_64228_AltGF_122_1089lo.jpg (http://img167.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=64228_AltGF_122_1089lo.jpg)

Chart2
This one shows relation between Speed, G force and control input. Input of +/-10 is maximum control input. On chart it goes slightly above 10 due to Excel curve smoothing.

http://img5.imagevenue.com/loc675/th_64230_Cont-GF_122_675lo.jpg (http://img5.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=64230_Cont-GF_122_675lo.jpg)

Good enough?

FC

Kettenhunde
05-14-2008, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ..... IIRC, one of the major factors in airframe failure during high-speed dives was yaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are many reasons why at high speed an airframe can fail. The Bf-109 had a longitudinal instability when using the flosse. The pilots could use the trim of the Bf-109 to overcome the safety feature of the elevator control.

Not singling you out Blutarski, I really don't understand the constant need to point out every other aircraft's design difficulties when discussing any particular aircraft.

All of these designers very much knew what they were doing when it came to their own designs. All of these aircraft, like most complex machines, had technical problems during their production and operation. Facts are the vast majority of these were solved in a timely fashion.

These airplanes all have much more in common with one another than differences just by the virtue of the fact they are all just variations of the exact same theme.

All those "performance" differences guys get so worked up about watching Dogfights or reading some anecdotes, generally have very little to do with the actual aircraft performance. The differences you see are mostly the result of condition of flight differences and pilot skill.

All the best,

Crumpp

DKoor
05-14-2008, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
First this isn't about structural strength etc., this is about P-51D losing wings at the slightest sign of non-trimmed turn (or better, should I say 'change of direction' instead of 'turn' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif ) at 635km/h, I believe that is exclusive P-51 "feature" in game. And I will continue to believe so until someone post a honest track that will show otherwise.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
P51 doing wild turn and not losing the wing
Track:
http://rapidshare.com/files/114815775/P51.trk
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can't see the track... which version of the game you use? Mine is V4.08.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Chart1
This chart show relations between speed, G force and altitude. Altitude values are divided by 100 to make chart easier to read.
http://img167.imagevenue.com/loc1089/th_64228_AltGF_122_1089lo.jpg (http://img167.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=64228_AltGF_122_1089lo.jpg)

Chart2
This one shows relation between Speed, G force and control input. Input of +/-10 is maximum control input. On chart it goes slightly above 10 due to Excel curve smoothing.

http://img5.imagevenue.com/loc675/th_64230_Cont-GF_122_675lo.jpg (http://img5.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=64230_Cont-GF_122_675lo.jpg)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Charts, if I read them correctly, seem to indicate that elevator authority rises quite well ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) above 600km/h. Thanks for the work FC http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Good enough?

FC </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry FC, but good enough for what?

That text of mine you quoted was about seeing some other (any really, other than P-51) aircraft track that can lose its wings non-trimmed at 635km/h.
Again, thanks for the work and track... BTW can you make it .NTRK? Thus it will be playable on any machine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

FatCat_99
05-14-2008, 07:03 AM
I had this part in mind

<span class="ev_code_RED">this is about P-51D losing wings at the slightest sign of non-trimmed turn</span>

What I wanted to show is that P-51 doesn't lose wings just like that, you need some serious abuse of plane to lose wing.

In other words there is no plane in a game that will lose a wing at slight turn.

I can make ntrk version of a track but trk is better for device link analysis because more data is stored in it. In our case most important variable is GForce which is not recorded in ntrk.

FC

M_Gunz
05-14-2008, 09:56 AM
Good work FatCat!

What you're hearing with things like "slightest turn" is the characteristic whining sound
of the common clueless loser.

M_Gunz
05-14-2008, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is that possible? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, G is a function of speed and AoA.
A highly-effective elevator will get you high Gs in no time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When your CoG is very near your CoL then it doesn't take as much elevator to pivot the plane
on pitch axis as another with less leverage given to the tail, which is more stable.

P-51 in IL2 pays for the easy elevator in stability.

ElAurens
05-14-2008, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
characteristic whining sound
of the common clueless loser. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A really wonderful insight Gunz.

Why is everything so bloody personal with you?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
05-14-2008, 10:40 AM
Well I'm laughing when I say that so I hope you've got your picture right.

Kettenhunde
05-14-2008, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> When your CoG is very near your CoL then it doesn't take as much elevator to pivot the plane on pitch axis as another with less leverage given to the tail, which is more stable.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz,

Your concept should read:

When your CoG is just forward of your CoL then the pilot does not have to exert as much force on the stick to move the elevator.

This does not effect the angular velocity at which the elevator can move the nose through degress. That is a function of the ratio of control surface area to horizontal stabilizer area.

All the best,

Crumpp

Swivet
05-14-2008, 11:32 AM
For a plane that supposedly "won the war", it sure has some weak points in this sim......I have had rare occurances of the wings ripping off like this, but not many. Usually in a tight dive i try not to excellerate too fast, by tapping combat flaps or throttling back a notch. Maybe your wing took a bullet hit and made it weak? If that be the case Oleg and crew certainly got the damage modelling down to an almost complete science in some areas http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DKoor
05-14-2008, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
I had this part in mind

<span class="ev_code_RED">this is about P-51D losing wings at the slightest sign of non-trimmed turn</span>

What I wanted to show is that P-51 doesn't lose wings just like that, you need some serious abuse of plane to lose wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>OK... so I did serious abusing on the track?
I have nothing more to add.

DKoor
05-14-2008, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What you're hearing with things like "slightest turn" is the characteristic whining sound
of the common clueless loser. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't believe that you may go that low to say that.

Well, Mister... good for you that you're so full of knowledge!

Daiichidoku
05-14-2008, 02:14 PM
ummmerrrrahhhh fifteen....."G"



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

M_Gunz
05-15-2008, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What you're hearing with things like "slightest turn" is the characteristic whining sound
of the common clueless loser. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't believe that you may go that low to say that.

Well, Mister... good for you that you're so full of knowledge! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For over 10 years I've been on flight sim forums.
When I read complaints about whatever sim it is there's one kind that just lump into a group.
In every last case the problem description is built on and around exaggeration, and usually wrong to boot.
In every last case it's emotion-driven.
In most cases the complainer does the same one or two things over and over.
In all cases the complainer has not really looked for a way out or around or looks at themself as the source.
Oh no, the game is wrong. I know how to....... whatever.
And whatever it is, it's impossible or inhuman for anyone to do.
The slightest is in over half of those though speed bleed is more often than wing snap.

Few people post about losing fine control in the heat of battle.

What do you say about people who get all into a "this needs fixed" upset-state over things
you know better than and have read multiple threads about?
What do you say to people who come up all nasty about planes that -can't- be turned without
spinning when you can turn the same ones till greyout and blackout?
What do you say when 3 to 10 others jump on and take up the cry? And I DO mean cry.
What about when it's on the chat as the excuse du jour?

What do I or anyone else owe these people besides the care and sensitivity that they have put
behind their "the game is screwed up"/"my favorite plane is porked" posts?

The slightest stick movement my six.

SterlingX
05-15-2008, 03:19 PM
Snap rolls (rolls out of the main axis) will do that - it puts excessive loads on the wing roots.
They were forbidden on some WW2 fighters.
Not sure if this is modeled in the game, or if the P-51 was one of those.

M_Gunz
05-15-2008, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> When your CoG is very near your CoL then it doesn't take as much elevator to pivot the plane on pitch axis as another with less leverage given to the tail, which is more stable.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz,

Your concept should read:

When your CoG is just forward of your CoL then the pilot does not have to exert as much force on the stick to move the elevator.

This does not effect the angular velocity at which the elevator can move the nose through degress. That is a function of the ratio of control surface area to horizontal stabilizer area.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes you need a bit longer lever arm to move the boulder at all, and then speed isn't so
much the point as moving the thing at all, right?

We do have a P-51 with a lot of leverage for the elevator. And at high speeds it takes very
little +AOA to make a lot of extra lift, right?

OTOH the P-51 isn't so great at low speeds for some odd reason.

VW-IceFire
05-15-2008, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
I had this part in mind

<span class="ev_code_RED">this is about P-51D losing wings at the slightest sign of non-trimmed turn</span>

What I wanted to show is that P-51 doesn't lose wings just like that, you need some serious abuse of plane to lose wing.

In other words there is no plane in a game that will lose a wing at slight turn.

I can make ntrk version of a track but trk is better for device link analysis because more data is stored in it. In our case most important variable is GForce which is not recorded in ntrk.

FC </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its not really so much of the turn...but if I make a sudden motion on my stick, at high speed, in a Mustang, it will probably shed a wing. I've since learned to limit such motions and pretend that the plane has a solid elevator like a 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I realize its the 15G limit across the board for all planes and that its just that some types are more capable of exceeding the 15G structural limit than other types. It seems that the Mustang can exceed this limit with a slight but rapid motion on the stick. I say it seems because I haven't measured it. I think we do have some data on that somewhere.

I think it'd be nice if it weren't so easy to load 15G straight away like that. But every plane has its vice I guess...this one is particularly deadly. To be fair I've broken wings off a number of planes...the Tempest is not nearly so bad but if you're going fast and you pull back hard...and I mean full travel...then yes you can snap the wing. With the Mustang you don't need nearly as much travel with the stick. Thats just the hard part that I have trouble with http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
05-15-2008, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I realize its the 15G limit across the board for all planes and that its just that some types are more capable of exceeding the 15G structural limit than other types. It seems that the Mustang can exceed this limit with a slight but rapid motion on the stick. I say it seems because I haven't measured it. I think we do have some data on that somewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get away with more stick movement at 500kph and less as opposed to 600kph and more.
In really high speed dives, 800kph and over, if I'm having an off day I can lose parts way
before I should -- but that's me and I know it since I don't have all bad days.

By using about 50% filter I do fly smoother. I could go for more.

What I learned from GA pilots is to move the control some and wait for the plane to start
moving in that direction before moving the column more. It keeps my control movements
close to what is happening is the best I can say it. Start the turn, develop the turn,
finish the turn. If the nose starts slowing down then don't just pull harder, those kinds
of things. Ditto for pulling up. And yet I am not a super pilot compared to those who
have taken the course and got the license, they just wax my butt.

DrHerb
05-15-2008, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SterlingX:
Snap rolls (rolls out of the main axis) will do that - it puts excessive loads on the wing roots.
They were forbidden on some WW2 fighters.
Not sure if this is modeled in the game, or if the P-51 was one of those. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If memory serves me correctly, the P-51 had what they called a "de-boost" tab on the rudder, cause if you snaprolled it, it tended to tear the tail off. I watched that on a Jeff Ethell checkout ride on a P-51.

Bremspropeller
05-15-2008, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Snap rolls (rolls out of the main axis) will do that - it puts excessive loads on the wing roots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you'd not snap a wing during the snap-roll.
It would just inflict structural damage on your wing-root.
If the crew-chief realizes that, anything will be fine - he'll change the part and you'll pay him a couple of beers.

If he doesn't well, your bad - you'll propably lose a wing during the next hard maneuver.
A hard landing might as well tear a wing off (as long as you gear is placed below the wing, not below the fuselage).

Kettenhunde
05-15-2008, 06:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sometimes you need a bit longer lever arm to move the boulder at all, and then speed isn't so much the point as moving the thing at all, right?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly what is going on M_Gunz. You're not moving the "boulder" any farther. The lever is longer so the force required moving it the same distance is less.

Remember whenever you take an airplane above Va, you can break the airframe with full control deflection.

Here is the warning from the P51D POH:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3073/p51stickforcesdj2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3073/p51stickforcesdj2.b1fd9b44a1.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=207&i=p51stickforcesdj2.jpg)

BTW, note the force reversal. That is a dangerous thing in an airplane. It's more common than engineers would like but nonetheless it is not a good thing especially at high velocity. This means of stick forces move from pull force to a push force or vice versa to maintain the same condition of flight.

In other words if you are pushing to ease out of the dive and you hit that reversal point, you are now applying input force in the opposite direction from where you want to go. Instead of slowly recovering from the dive, you are now increasing the load factor in the recovery.

All the best,

Crumpp

&lt;edited to add part about force reversal&gt;

DKoor
05-15-2008, 06:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kettenhunde
05-15-2008, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But you'd not snap a wing during the snap-roll. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe or maybe not. There is a good possibiity you would never even see the damage so that there is nothing to repair.

Especially without the aid of modern NDT.

Very likely though you would experience some damage. That damage has a very real possbility of causing the airframe to fail under much lower loads the next time.

Here is a warning to the Luftwaffe pilots. The words were sent out German pilots but those words apply to all airplanes:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Further, once an aircraft has been forced over maximum speeds beyond the limits of elasticity in a vital part without a fracture resulting, the fracture can occur much sooner in a later heavy loading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/7314/fw190me109quirksdj9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/7314/fw190me109quirksdj9.484368dd7e.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=207&i=fw190me109quirksdj9.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
05-15-2008, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
BTW, note the force reversal. That is a dangerous thing in an airplane. It's more common than engineers would like but nonetheless it is not a good thing especially at high velocity. This means of stick forces move from pull force to a push force or vice versa to maintain the same condition of flight.

In other words if you are pushing to ease out of the dive and you hit that reversal point, you are now applying input force in the opposite direction from where you want to go. Instead of slowly recovering from the dive, you are now increasing the load factor in the recovery. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's something we flying the sim don't have feel of without FFB, if it happens in IL2.
I've seen it posted that it does happen as Godfrey wrote but I'm still not so sure it does.

Xiolablu3
05-16-2008, 01:54 AM
I shed a wing on a Fw190A4 tonight at 740kph.

I was diving down with my throttle off attacking a landing craft with 20mm, I fired off a few shots at longish range, as I was travelling so fast. Then pulled up and 'snap' off came the wing.

it can happen on any aircraft.

julian265
05-16-2008, 02:36 AM
Sorry if this has been mentioned before (haven't read pages 2-6...)

Spiky signals from joysticks might be a reason that some people snap wings more than others.

Eg. I know a few aging saitek stick users (though the problem is not limited to saitek) that can't fly jets with their throttles - because their signal spikes too much and causes flame outs, even when they're moving the throttle slowly. The same will happen with the other pot-controlled axes. A signal spike when you're pulling out of a high speed dive wouldn't be too good.

Also relevant is my experience with early carb'd planes and fuel cut from negative G maneuvers. I used to use a logitech extreme 3d pro, and the slightest forward movement would cause a complete engine stoppage, even when doing it very slowly. I have since modded a CH stick with hall sensors, and used a custom USB interface, and now barely get any engine stoppages/wing breakage, despite handling the planes pretty similarly.

Obviously IL2 models its wing breakages and fuel cut-outs from the unmodified control INPUT - which includes spikes of a few milliseconds. Hence the plane will look like you're handling it gently enough, but you'll break a wing, flame out an engine, or get a fuel cut.

Hence a workaround might be to increase the axes' damping (or smoothing, I can't remember) in the IL2 input options, at the cost of control response.

Phil_K
05-16-2008, 04:30 AM
Actually us simmers do have an advantage in that airframe fatigue isn't modelled. I believe that fatigue, which wasn't well-understood in WW2, was responsible for a lot of P-51 (and other planes) shedding wings in combat.

For instance, a P-51 pilot could pull off an extreme manoeuvre during one combat mission and get home in one piece, but unknowingly cause deep structural damage to his wings. Next mission, it's one gentle turn and then.....disaster.

M_Gunz
05-16-2008, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by julian265:
Spiky signals from joysticks might be a reason that some people snap wings more than others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tuner spray can work wonders there. Getting down to the pots being the hard part, at least
the X-52 uses hall sensor for X and Y axes so no need there.

Could corrosion on the plugs between stick and throttle also be a problem source?
I get that with my PC speakers, spray the plugs and work em in and out to rub the oxides off
and get some spray into the unit then spray the volume knob from the front and twist to get
that cleaned.

horseback
05-16-2008, 09:56 AM
Phil_K has made a valid point.

Zemke's own account of his wingloss refers to the fact that he had stressed the airframe pretty heavily on his previous mission, but his crewchief couldn't find any evidence of damage (lacking the tools we take for granted today) and cleared the fighter for furhter combat use.

Obviously, flying through a thunderhead (as Zemke was forced to by low fuel state) might have overstressed a brand new aircraft, so I have to wonder why so many quote this particular incident as 'proof' of the Mustang's 'weak' wings.

My own take on the Mustang's 'fragility' in-game is that it is overdone relative to its major opponents in-game. Most of the pilots who flew it and complained of its weaknesses were Americans who had flown P-40s, P-38s or P-47s, which were outstandingly tough airframes.

If anything, this comparison is overquoted and taken out of the context of American fighters and extended out to all WWII fighters. I believe that the Mustang was still quite a bit more rugged than the vast majority of the smaller and lighter fighters built by the European manufacturers.

I think that Oleg & co misinterpreted the data quoted to them and found a way to make the Mustang artificially prone to wing loss in order to satisfy the entrenched and vocal crowd of Luftie fliers, who had largely had it all their own way prior to the Mustang's introduction just before the AEP's release.

I have to believe that a large fraction of wing loss incidents reported in WWII fighters were the result of overconfidence ("...it made it through a dive this hard the last time I did it") and cumulative stress to wingspars or major connecting bolts, etc. In the cases of the Messerschmitts, we have to bear in mind that the Axis made a regular practice of rebuilding old airframes and returning them to combat units, so undetected flaws might have been more prevalent than we would think.

Historically, the pony was less fragile in the air to air regime than depicted in-game; the in-game version's fragility is due to a combination of the greater skills of the ai and the online aces added to the exaggerated (and constantly modified) differences in its handling model.

cheers

horseback

Hoarmurath
05-16-2008, 10:09 AM
I see two categories of people in this thread.

Those who try to explain why the mustang in game lose its wings.

And those trying to explain why mustang IRL shouldn't lose its wings.

They are both right, but nothing positive will come until all people start speaking about the same subject.

M_Gunz
05-16-2008, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I think that Oleg & co misinterpreted the data quoted to them and found a way to make the Mustang artificially prone to wing loss in order to satisfy the entrenched and vocal crowd of Luftie fliers, who had largely had it all their own way prior to the Mustang's introduction just before the AEP's release. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty good Luftie trick, getting P-51 fans to send a pile of data including stick forces to
Oleg and demanding more elevator authority. Boy those Lufties are devious beyond paranoia!

M_Gunz
05-16-2008, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
I see two categories of people in this thread.

Those who try to explain why the mustang in game lose its wings.

And those trying to explain why mustang IRL shouldn't lose its wings.

They are both right, but nothing positive will come until all people start speaking about the same subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too right.

Xiolablu3
05-16-2008, 10:53 AM
SHed anopther wing today in a FW190A6 at around 750kph.

An La5FN was chasing me, so I decided to take him as fas as possible then pull up to make him disintegrate.

He did, it worked, but my wing also came off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Simon (HuninMunin) was on the server and landing at the time, not sure if he saw it or not.


Again, it can happen in any plane, its just that the Pony picks up speed so fast in a dive , it happens more often and is easier to do in that plane, because its so low drag.

As I fly energy tactics most of the time, I do it often in all planes. It happens most in those planes with low drag like the P51, Fw190, and sometimes in the Bf109.

stalkervision
05-16-2008, 11:49 AM
Does anyone know the one particular ww 2 american fighter aircraft that supposidly has no dive speed limit.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Aaron_GT
05-16-2008, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think that Oleg & co misinterpreted the data quoted to them and found a way to make the Mustang artificially prone to wing loss in order to satisfy the entrenched and vocal crowd of Luftie fliers, who had largely had it all their own way prior to the Mustang's introduction just before the AEP's release. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

People have tracked the behaviour with DeviceLink. Hit 15G and the wings come off, ditto any plane. It's been shown multiple times. Before the elevator authority was increased it didn't happen. It seems clear to me that it is due to this, not some conspiracy theory. I've exchanged a few emails with Oleg over the years and I can't imagine him being as petty as to intenionally badly model a plane, especially one that is a favorite of as large a market as the USA (and despite me being a Brit I like it too).

What I do think might be an isuue is the lack of tactile feedback in many areas, plus the modelling of stick movement to force might not be right yet. It has been modified a few times over the life of the game but it might need some more work to make up for the lsck of tactile feedback.

Actually the issue of tactile feedback was, and still is, one of the controversial points on the choice of an Airbus over a Boeing for the USAAF tanker contract. The concern has been expressed that with fly-by-wire then without retraining over control is possible, which was suggested as a cause of the loss of the tail from an Airbus over New York. The game may be subject to the same issues, and perhaps the same issues of getting fully realistic control surface feedback apply to both.

Korolov1986
05-16-2008, 02:02 PM
Gentlemen,

Way back on the first page I reported that wing breakage seems to be heavily influenced by altitude in the game. A dive to 800kmh TAS from 3000m caused wing breakages (using maximum elevator trim in all cases) with the Spitfire IX, P-40M, P-47D, F6F-5, F4U-1D, Yak-3, Bf-109K, and Fw-190D-9. A similar dive to the same speed from 10,000m never resulted in wing breakage.

I understand that air density has an effect here, but my real question is the amount of Gs being pulled. Is it necessary at higher altitude to push to a higher speed to attain the same G in a pull out at low altitude? Or are the G's being pulled at all altitudes the same regardless of air density?

Aaron_GT
05-16-2008, 02:22 PM
Your local DeviceLink expert would be the one to ask. Tagert was a dab hand with DeviceLink, but isn't on call for this one.

GOYA_551st
05-16-2008, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Korolov1986:
Gentlemen,

Way back on the first page I reported that wing breakage seems to be heavily influenced by altitude in the game. A dive to 800kmh TAS from 3000m caused wing breakages (using maximum elevator trim in all cases) with the Spitfire IX, P-40M, P-47D, F6F-5, F4U-1D, Yak-3, Bf-109K, and Fw-190D-9. A similar dive to the same speed from 10,000m never resulted in wing breakage.

I understand that air density has an effect here, but my real question is the amount of Gs being pulled. Is it necessary at higher altitude to push to a higher speed to attain the same G in a pull out at low altitude? Or are the G's being pulled at all altitudes the same regardless of air density? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your testing would indicate, and rightly so, that there is more at work than G forces in wing shedding. Drag forces on the wings are apparently a cause as well. From my experiences in IL2, I can say I've shed wings in pullouts that could not have been anywhere close to 15G. As a LOMAC F-15 vpilot, I'm used to seeing Gs displayed constantly. The types of pulls that have shed wings in the P-51 would not have even engaged the G-limiter in the F-15, much less could have reached 15G.

ElAurens
05-16-2008, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Does anyone know the one particular ww 2 american fighter aircraft that supposidly has no dive speed limit.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grumman F4F. It was so draggy that it could not dive fast enough to hurt itself.

Now, question number 2:

What was the first US military aircraft to have a speed redline?

ElAurens
05-16-2008, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
What I do think might be an isuue is the lack of tactile feedback in many areas, plus the modelling of stick movement to force might not be right yet. It has been modified a few times over the life of the game but it might need some more work to make up for the lsck of tactile feedback.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!!!

Our BlitzPig real aerobatics instructor cites this shortcoming of the sim often.

stalkervision
05-16-2008, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Does anyone know the one particular ww 2 american fighter aircraft that supposidly has no dive speed limit.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grumman F4F. It was so draggy that it could not dive fast enough to hurt itself.

Now, question number 2:

What was the first US military aircraft to have a speed redline? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Got that one huh and for the exact reason too. I'm impressed.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Aaron_GT
05-16-2008, 05:41 PM
When I had a spare non-FFB Sidewinder I did consider getting a hollow broomstick and transplanting the handle onto the top of the broomstick to make a long throw stick. The length of the handle would need to be short enough so I could still get full deflection, but would be longer than at present. I then wanted to see how this changed feel.

I could have a go with my current FFB stick but I'm not going to transfer the handle! It would be strictly a temporary job with duct tape!

M_Gunz
05-16-2008, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
despite me being a Brit I like it too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) If it wasn't for the British there would be no Mustang.
2) If it wasn't for the British there would be no Rolls Royce engine to make it so hot.

M_Gunz
05-16-2008, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Korolov1986:
Gentlemen,

Way back on the first page I reported that wing breakage seems to be heavily influenced by altitude in the game. A dive to 800kmh TAS from 3000m caused wing breakages (using maximum elevator trim in all cases) with the Spitfire IX, P-40M, P-47D, F6F-5, F4U-1D, Yak-3, Bf-109K, and Fw-190D-9. A similar dive to the same speed from 10,000m never resulted in wing breakage.

I understand that air density has an effect here, but my real question is the amount of Gs being pulled. Is it necessary at higher altitude to push to a higher speed to attain the same G in a pull out at low altitude? Or are the G's being pulled at all altitudes the same regardless of air density? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAS or IAS?

Korolov1986
05-16-2008, 07:19 PM
TAS. When I tried to equal the speeds with IAS, that usually resulted in wing breakage.

Bremspropeller
05-16-2008, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I understand that air density has an effect here, but my real question is the amount of Gs being pulled. Is it necessary at higher altitude to push to a higher speed to attain the same G in a pull out at low altitude? Or are the G's being pulled at all altitudes the same regardless of air density? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, they aren't.
At high alt - as you pointed out - the air is not dense enough to pull enough Gs to hurt yourself (Thats quite a simplistic view - regard it as a rule of thump: higher alt, more speed for the same Gs. Since you can't widen your AoA-envelope your only way of getting the Gs up is more speed!).

So you'd either accelerate or you descend to lower altitues in order to bend your airframe.

High alt also decreases your maneuvering envelope in another way: your critical Mach is at a lower IAS than "on the deck".

M_Gunz
05-16-2008, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Korolov1986:
TAS. When I tried to equal the speeds with IAS, that usually resulted in wing breakage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IAS is like your air density speed, the higher you go the lower your IAS for TAS.
It is as Brems says above.

IAS tells you what speed you have for maneuver. (I'm sure there's better words to explain)
Consider that stall speed at 1G is the same IAS regardless of altitude and that accelerated
stall speeds (the slowest you can turn for G's banked) are the same IAS.

So at lower alt the same TAS is higher IAS is more lift and control response.

What IL2 does not have is Mach which decreases with temperature therefore altitude so we don't
see those effects modeled except in some limited way that Oleg did not say just what.

Daiichidoku
05-16-2008, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Korolov1986:
A dive to 800kmh TAS from 3000m caused wing breakages (using maximum elevator trim in all cases) with the Spitfire IX, P-40M, P-47D, F6F-5, F4U-1D, Yak-3, Bf-109K, and Fw-190D-9. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

did you test the 38 as well? no wing breakage? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

M_Gunz
05-16-2008, 08:36 PM
Guess why.

Daiichidoku
05-16-2008, 09:46 PM
cuz in real life p 38s reached critical mach from dives starting at 9,000 ft?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Korolov1986
05-16-2008, 10:26 PM
No, because at max elevator trim and maximum pull, the P-38 can't pull enough G's to break the wings.

Badsight-
05-17-2008, 05:55 AM
wings snaps happen in planes with a good elevator

this is hard to understand ?!?!?


FW-190
Hayate
Mustang

Kettenhunde
05-17-2008, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> wings snaps happen in planes with a good elevator
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't use the word, "good". It is definately not a good thing to have a longitudinal instability at high speed. It is a dangerous thing in fact.

This would be more accurate to read:

Wing snaps happen in planes with a longitudinal instability that develops at high speed. The stick force gradient is not high enough and the pilot can kill himself more easily.

Another way to word this is the stick forces are too low so that pilot does not have an appropriate feel and therefore kills himself by accidentally exceeding the limits of the design.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nope, they aren't.
At high alt - as you pointed out - the air is not dense enough to pull enough Gs to hurt yourself (Thats quite a simplistic view - regard it as a rule of thump: higher alt, more speed for the same Gs. Since you can't widen your AoA-envelope your only way of getting the Gs up is more speed!).

So you'd either accelerate or you descend to lower altitues in order to bend your airframe.

High alt also decreases your maneuvering envelope in another way: your critical Mach is at a lower IAS than "on the deck".

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Brems,

Allow me to clarify for the thread readers and expand some. There are multiple factors which determine Vne for an aircraft. The most common being mach limits and q-limits.

Mach limits are an issue at high altitudes for most aircraft because of density effects. While mach limits can be very dangerous, most commonly they result in loss of control and uncontrolled entry into the lower altitudes.

Q-limits or flutter limits are a low altitude effect related to the increased density of the air. Q-limits are the far more dangerous and commonly will rip the airframe apart due the harmonics of the flutter. No load factor is needed to do this either.

Load factor limits can be exceeded anytime the aircraft goes faster than Va (CAS) and applies full control deflection.

Hope this helps some!

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
05-17-2008, 06:41 AM
Crumpp, do you have any Fw 190 flight-enevolpe diagrams, or at least charts with Vne, Va, crit. Mach and G-loads?

I've read somewhere that an 190-airframe took the equivalent of 18g before tearing apart in a static stress-test.
Is that "green" or does that belong into the lands of unicorns and Superman?

I've also read in some pilot-aacount that there weren't many (if any!) performance-limits regarding dive and speed.
I can hardly believe that (for Mcrit reasons).

I guess you'll know a bit more about that than the usual user on this board, thatswhy I'm asking you...

Kettenhunde
05-17-2008, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is that "green" or does that belong into the lands of unicorns and Superman?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unicorns and superman my friend!

All of these aircraft are about the same as they are all the same class.

Airframe limits are just like all aircraft performance in that there is a considerable amount of variation in airframes in the same design.

The FW190 was limited like all fighters to a damage zone limit of ~6 G's and a failure zone limit of ~11G's.

Just because you pull 6 G's though does not mean you will experience damage. In fact, you can experience damage at both higher and lower load factors depending on the condition of the airframe.

Same thing with ultimate load factor limits.

The main factor in determining our limiting load factor is weight.

For example the F51D manual lists the maximum load factor as ~8G's for an 8000lbs aircraft. At a WWII P-51D take off weight of 9611lbs, this load factor is reduced to ~6G's.

The biggest limit to the load factor was the pilot. Human beings average around a 4G limit for useful consciousness.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
05-17-2008, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Crumpp, do you have any Fw 190 flight-enevolpe diagrams, or at least charts with Vne, Va, crit. Mach and G-loads? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


All of that is in the POH or easy to calculate.

I can tell you what the POH says but that cannot be used as a basis for comparision with other aircraft.

POH says:

FW190A8 -
Vne - 850kph
Va - TO weight - 429kph
Mach limits - ~mach .79

G load - ~6G's at 4272kg

All the best,

Crumpp

stalkervision
05-17-2008, 09:13 AM
Does anyone have a major refrence source to the P-51's wing structure fault. I found one second hand refrence to it is all.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

M_Gunz
05-17-2008, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Crumpp, do you have any Fw 190 flight-enevolpe diagrams, or at least charts with Vne, Va, crit. Mach and G-loads? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


All of that is in the POH or easy to calculate.

I can tell you what the POH says but that cannot be used as a basis for comparision with other aircraft.

POH says:

FW190A8 -
Vne - 850kph
Va - TO weight - 429kph
Mach limits - ~mach .79

G load - ~6G's at 4272kg

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These include safety factor then?

IF SO THEN without knowing how much each country/manufacturer used it is right to say we
can't use POH numbers to compare for ultimate values of the planes, right?

M_Gunz
05-17-2008, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Does anyone have a major refrence source to the P-51's wing structure fault. I found one second hand refrence to it is all.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a short-lived problem when a few (out of 1000's) were found to have lost wing(s)
when a gear door opened in dive or pullout, not sure on details, ask around.

It was fixed.

IRL control of P-51 was not the same as sitting behind a PC screen with about 6" of hand throw
on a PC stick with user settings that may or may not have any feedback beyond what you see on
the screen.
IRL those same P-51's were flown by highly trained and intelligent pilots.

How should it be in game for players?
Many do not have problems or at least they don't place fault on the models.

Try 100% Filter on pitch axis alone and see if it helps. You still have to take care.

Kettenhunde
05-17-2008, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> IF SO THEN without knowing how much each country/manufacturer used it is right to say we can't use POH numbers to compare for ultimate values of the planes, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is pretty much it unless you have all the stuff under the same conditions. If you know how to convert for conditions then you certainly can use it as a basis.

In fact when I do my comparisons, I convert from IAS to EAS and use that so my atmospheric conditions are all the same. Then all you have to do is confirm the power for the altitude.

Mach limits are completely worthless for a comparison basis.

The safety factor does vary some but keep in mind it has to stay within a specific range or the plane will not fly.

All the best,

Crumpp

Matz0r
05-18-2008, 09:38 AM
Maybe this has been said here already but. I tested this years ago, using the devicelink to record data. What I found was that all planes I tested snapped their wings off at exactly 15G, including the P-51. The reason for the "brittle" P-51 wings in the game is because of CRAZY elevator authority it has at high speeds, not structural weakness in the model.

That said, I wish you could have separate input curves for each plane model because once you've slowed down the controls enough to fly the P-51 you can throw the plane around as you wish at high speeds.

DKoor
05-18-2008, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
That said, I wish you could have separate input curves for each plane model because once you've slowed down the controls enough to fly the P-51 you can throw the plane around as you wish at high speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey mate I have nice little program called "IL2 Sticks"... what is awsum about it is you can change your stick profile (in game conf.ini) with click or two with it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

All this made me to set up a special P-51 conf.ini joy setup... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/il2_sticks.jpg

Could as well be the best course of actions considering all facts...

M_Gunz
05-18-2008, 01:32 PM
May it bring you victories!

DKoor
05-18-2008, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
May it bring you victories! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks, good man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.