PDA

View Full Version : OLEG! Tell me why the Stang loses it wing in highspeed turn in dive!



VMF-214_HaVoK
05-30-2004, 11:13 PM
Its happened to me 4 times now. Im diving with a FW following its manuvers and I lose my wing. Cant follow BFs or FWs in high speed dives and turn now or you loose you wing. Seeing how high speed manuverabilty is one of the Mustangs greatest strengths I find this very unaccurate. I really hope you fix this obvious bug. How can it go from what it was in the first free addon to what it is now? I mean how can you justify changing it so many times if you say its right in the beginning? (That goes for all planes) Best example of dramatic changes to FM is the FW of IL-2 to the FW we have now IMO.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-30-2004, 11:13 PM
Its happened to me 4 times now. Im diving with a FW following its manuvers and I lose my wing. Cant follow BFs or FWs in high speed dives and turn now or you loose you wing. Seeing how high speed manuverabilty is one of the Mustangs greatest strengths I find this very unaccurate. I really hope you fix this obvious bug. How can it go from what it was in the first free addon to what it is now? I mean how can you justify changing it so many times if you say its right in the beginning? (That goes for all planes) Best example of dramatic changes to FM is the FW of IL-2 to the FW we have now IMO.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

VFA-195 Snacky
05-31-2004, 12:23 AM
IMO it's the constant bickering on these boards that determines changes being made to certain aircraft. I'm not saying you don't have a legit gripe because you very well could have one, but it just looks like the constant whining on this forum seems to influence decisions made in the sim when it should be done on data and real world accounts only, not what 13 year old buddy thinks.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**

Cragger
05-31-2004, 12:44 AM
I've yet to experience this in any aircraft with an UNDAMAGED wing. If your wing has taken damage, then I'd say this is fine. The Real pilots of WW2 always fretted about tearing the skin off the wings due to damage or the internal structure failing. And when presented with this dillemma babied their aircraft home.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-31-2004, 01:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snacky1:
IMO it's the constant bickering on these boards that determines changes being made to certain aircraft. I'm not saying you don't have a legit gripe because you very well could have one, but it just looks like the constant whining on this forum seems to influence decisions made in the sim when it should be done on data and real world accounts only, not what 13 year old buddy thinks.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dont have a 13 year old buddy Im 30 years old with 3 sons and 1 daughter. ( So that clears up that part for ya)

Im not whining. I would like to know why the Mustang falls apart now when trying to turn in a dive at speeds above 750kph. If someone can post evidence that the Mustang had this problem then so be it. I want accurate FMs and by changing dramatically from one patch to another does not halp that matter.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-31-2004, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cragger:
I've yet to experience this in any aircraft with an UNDAMAGED wing. If your wing has taken damage, then I'd say this is fine. The Real pilots of WW2 always fretted about tearing the skin off the wings due to damage or the internal structure failing. And when presented with this dillemma babied their aircraft home.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ive never seen it either but be sure the Mustang falls apart at speeds above 750kph while diving and trying to turn sharply. The FW didnt fall apart.
This happened to me 2 flights in a row in Warclouds tonite, so there are some witnesses. One person said that the TA-152 also has this problem. I have not seen the TA do it but believe me the Mustang does.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2004, 01:31 AM
mmm, I did see Oleg post recently that the New Patch models structural failure for the first time, something all our Ace FM Experts missed, here, at teh ubi.com


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-31-2004, 02:16 AM
it is not the dive itselfes.

it is the High-G-Load on your wing.

You will get a verry High-G-Load if you try to follow the enemy AND try to aim at the same time, because if you do so you will fly the turn even tighter with higher AoA and with higher G-load.

This will clip you wing(s).

and it will happen to FW as well.
Dive to ~800 and pull out hard, you will clip your wing. You have to recover smothly.

just remember the high-speed tests, they start to recover about 2000m befor they go level again!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

WWMaxGunz
05-31-2004, 02:35 AM
Oh boy! The controlled and objective theatre of online combat. What better
way to test a plane? Of course being able to refer to pilots stories and
a plane's reputation makes it all correct. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You is whining. Be sure.


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2004, 02:52 AM
mmm, its not exactly Whining, in the strict traditional sense, because the structural failure thing failed to appear in the Patch readme file, and the FM engineers here didn't catch it.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Gryphonne
05-31-2004, 03:56 AM
No offense but this just sounds like a case of my stang-should-be-better-than-any-other-plane-syndrome.

Now seriously, any plane that can dive to that speed, having enough elevator authority, can tear it's own wings off.

You just pulled the stick back too hard trying to aim at the FW. Considering he did not lose a wing, I must say he did a good job.

Stress model seems to be included for a/c under fire as well. Aircraft in a hard turns, that get a hit on their wings, seem to lose them very quickly.

I am pleased this kind of modelling is finally included.

Regards,

Gryphon

Take a look to the sky just before you die, it's the last time you will!

CaptainGelo
05-31-2004, 04:09 AM
its VMF-214 member, dont mind him.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
05-31-2004, 04:28 AM
Well, if stress modelling is factored into aircraft that is excellent. Also, I`ve flown the P51 a few times now on Warclouds and not suffered this stress-break problem, but then again I always balk (pull back) at about 600-650 (probably from my Spit and LA5 experiences).

Also, if it`s true that it also happens to OTHER planes under VERY high speed/high turn conditions there`s no complaining to be done. Just ease up when you are doing such extreme speeds with sharp turns (just imagine the stress on that wing).

Personall, VMF-214_HaVoK, I believe you`re having this problem a lot due to your STYLE of flying, not a fault in the FMs. You like to push the envelope. I`m afraid you need to hold back a bit on the high speed, sharp turn thing to avoid snapping that wing off. You may not like it, but if that`s how it was, well, that`s how it was.

I like this failure thing, great stuff, Oleg. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Keep such realistic faults problems.

SeaFireLIV...


http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/storm.jpg

want to see more?
http://members.lycos.co.uk/gritier/

Atzebrueck
05-31-2004, 04:52 AM
I can confirm that it happens to all planes.

http://c.f.hahne.bei.t-online.de/signatur.jpg (http://www.vow-hq.com)

BBB_Hyperion
05-31-2004, 06:21 AM
That change was the answer to the hoover turns on fw and p51s this 3 to 4 s 180 degrees turns that all liked but that were not realistic cause of the
high g load.

Regards,
Hyperion

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-31-2004, 08:03 AM
but P51 can still turn like a spit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif it will out turn a G10 at 4k... (the B - modell just did)

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

LuftLuver
05-31-2004, 08:46 AM
Don't flame up here boys, nice and easy.

Havok, I saw you do that on Warclouds and it happened to me......once. The 109 and 190 guys are beginning to exploit this, but there is an answer. At around 720 you must begin to have a softer touch on the controls. SMALL adjust ments only. Definitely no major course changes. You can dive well past 800, but at this point only slight stick adjustments are allowed and you are better off using trim to pull the nose up to recover. The better way is to not enter these speeds. You don't need it. at 720 to 730 gently pull out of the dive and veer off to one side or the other to keep an eye on your prey. You will have altitude on him and awesome speed. You still dictate the fight at this point. Many times they will zoom right back up in front of you and you have just cut across the loop right onto their 6. I don't recall anyone getting away from me by diving yet. Maybe the clouds have saved one or two, but you get the idea.


I have no idea if the way Oleg has modeled it is accurate or not. Time to test the German planes for this now.......

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

HQ1
05-31-2004, 09:31 AM
if you fly 190 sharply hold you stick plus use trim at 700ias+ its wing will be broken.

FA_Maddog
05-31-2004, 09:44 AM
There was another thread earlier about the P-51 losing its wing when you pull up hard out of a 640 Km/h dive. It doesn't take the 700-800 Km/h range to do it. For a high speed fighter, I would think it would be able to pull out of a dive at a speed greater than its overall top speed.

609IAP_Recon
05-31-2004, 09:55 AM
this is a good feature added.

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

JorBR
05-31-2004, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Maddog:
There was another thread earlier about the P-51 losing its wing when you pull up hard out of a 640 Km/h dive. It doesn't take the 700-800 Km/h range to do it. For a high speed fighter, I would think it would be able to pull out of a dive at a speed greater than its overall top speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tas or ias? If it´s ias no big deal.

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-31-2004, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
mmm, I did see Oleg post recently that the New Patch models structural failure for the first time, something _all_ our Ace FM Experts missed, here, at teh ubi.com


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish _"Gladiator"_ listed as _J8A_ _...in Aces Expansion Pack_


_"You will still have FB , you will lose _nothing_"_ ~WUAF_Badsight
_"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..."_ ~Bearcat99
_"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age"_ ~ElAurens
:
_"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore_!_"_ ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I never claimed to be and ACE FM EXPERT. Nice attempt at starting a flame though. If you seen the post then post a link. I find it funny that only the Mustang that I have seen so far is experiencing this new so call feature.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-31-2004, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oleg86:
its VMF-214 member, dont mind him.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3 | http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif Go back to your arcade settings.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-31-2004, 02:32 PM
So how it seems is that the FW and VVS boys can ask any question they want about issues concerming there planes and its legit. But how dare us US boys ask a question reguarding a US plane. When we do its always deemed as whining. Just mention the Mustang and out comes the trollers and flamers.

This is the ORR, I ask Oleg not you trollers who are attempting to flame this thread just so Ivan locks it. That seems to be your trick to keep down any threads requarding US planes.

As far as you Oleg86 the sh$t talkig n00b from UBI there is alot of things you may do in life but owning me with a VVS plane is not one of them. Never have and never will. You dont like a threads topic then stay out of it. Whats so hard about that?

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

VW-IceFire
05-31-2004, 02:52 PM
I think it was the extra .50cal in each wing that created some structural problems for the P-51D's in high speed dives.

I shudder to think what will happen when people take a dive in a Typhoon and the tail comes off due to excessive elevator vibration http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (not on the Tempest BTW!).

Thats awesome that some level of structural failure is modeled now. Thats very cool! Yak's and La's fall appart in different ways...the control surfaces usually snap off and the plane looses control.

Thing about the Mustang is that it otherwise loves the high speed and it doesn't buffet like some of the others do so the onset of extreme speed just doesn't seem so dangerous.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

GH_Klingstroem
05-31-2004, 02:56 PM
I have read quite a few times about the p51 beeing unstable in high speed dives! One guy even said he even avoided diving with the p51 because every time he did it he came home with popped rivets where the wing was attached to the fuselage. I dont know what version of the p51 that was or his name... I just know I have read it several times in diffrent books!!

CHDT
05-31-2004, 03:11 PM
Ok, what's better than a chart to end a debate http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/q.jpg

Maple_Tiger
05-31-2004, 03:26 PM
I find it very easy to rip the wing off the P-51.

I agree, all planes should have there wings ripped off.

But if the wings where realy that fragile, then the FW190 pilots, would in real life, go into a dive and pick up lots of speed and pull out. That would be an easy way to deal with a P-51. Good by P-51 lol.

Also, the FW and P-51 where a good match, I think there is something wronge with this picture,lol.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-31-2004, 03:27 PM
Thanks CHDT. Can you translate it for me?
If this is modeled in FB now then thats a good thing. I have only seen it happen to the Mustang though. All I wanted is a response to why it does but some just cant help themselves from turning any thread reguarding US a/c into a flaming mess.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

CHDT
05-31-2004, 03:42 PM
You're welcome http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This chart comes from a Swiss airforce crash investigation.

It appeared in fact, that the pilot of this P-51 dove too fast and made a too strong ressource near the ground. Too much G, the left wing broke and get directly on the cockpit, probably killing the pilot.

Recommandations after the crash investigation: insist on all pilots to be very gentle with the stick at high speed and to use the elevator trim very carefully in a dive.

Btw, this kind of recommandations was of course valable for all fighters: fatal structural damages can come very fast in case of too strong flying at high speeds (btw, that's why I've also looked with some fun the virtual pilots finding normal to use instant full trim at high speed and believing it's a realistic way of flying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Cheers,

P.S. I find the way Oleg modeled the whole busineess now very good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Grenze Flügelbruch: limit for wing break.

Atzebrueck
05-31-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
So how it seems is that the FW and VVS boys can ask any question they want about issues concerming there planes and its legit. But how dare us US boys ask a question reguarding a US plane. When we do its always deemed as whining. Just mention the Mustang and out comes the trollers and flamers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://c.f.hahne.bei.t-online.de/signatur.jpg (http://www.vow-hq.com)

ZG77_Nagual
05-31-2004, 04:55 PM
Not to worry - I did this in a dora last night. anywhere above 750k or so it's easy to pull too many Gs instantaneously and snap a wing in these planes - so far I've done it in a ki84, dora and mustang - usually happens very quickly before theres time to black out. Esp in a dive where you don't spill the speed as fast. Harder in other types because they don't have the elevator authority at high speeds to exceed structural limits. I'll bet it's not just Gs - but G combined with air resistance etc.

Like I said - I see it in all these high speed types - but the mustang had a rep for shedding it's wings. Here's a nice thread about the 51.

P51 bbs archive (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p51.html)

FA_Maddog
05-31-2004, 05:10 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JorBR:

Tas or ias? If it´s ias no big deal.

Yes JorBR, it was IAS, but I tested the P-51 using TAS.

I had wing failure using 25% fuel diving from 3000m was around 695-700 Km/h TAS, with 100% fuel it was around 750Km/h TAS.

I had wing failure using 25% fuel diving from 5000m at 800 Km/h TAS, and it was higher using 100% fuel. I forgot the TAS number, but the IAS was over 700 Km/h.

I would have thought using more fuel would have caused it to fail quicker, and I don't know why the lower altitude makes a difference in the wing failure.

BTW I never did get the Bf-109 to lose it wing from 5000m. I pulled up at 810 Km/h IAS nothing happened, anything over this and the plane would come apart before you could pull up.

[This message was edited by FA_Maddog on Mon May 31 2004 at 04:21 PM.]

ZG77_Nagual
05-31-2004, 05:35 PM
Of course - the 109 has nowhere near the elevator authority at that speed that the mustang - Ki and dora have. Same with the p38 and the p39/63.I've lost wings in ki84, dora and mustang right around 800k indicated - but it depends on how you yank the stick.

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-31-2004, 05:43 PM
See thats all I wanted to know. Many thanks to those that responded to the question in mature terms. Its nice to see that some can tell the difference between a legit question and a whine. Im glad Oleg has included structual failure under high G load I was just hoping it was for all planes. And from what some of you have said its true.
Thanks

=S=

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

SeaFireLIV
05-31-2004, 07:54 PM
Wow. Just read that stuff on the P51 teething troubles. I guess we`re lucky he only included wing failures- otherwise the tail might be falling off too under violent manouevers!

Interesting to note that against the LW, P51 flyers were happy, but not so when forced to fight hard against the Japanese!

Of course, I play hard and fight hard and wouldn`t mind if ALL aircraft had even MORE realistic faults to them. Would be tough, but the real boys had to deal with it!

SeaFireLIV...


http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/whereishe.jpg

WHERE is he???

Korolov
05-31-2004, 08:17 PM
I thought someone had said that the reason for the P-51 structural failures was the fuselage fuel tank, which put too much of a strain on the plane when manuvering at high G's.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

PzKpfw
05-31-2004, 08:34 PM
The Mustang's 85 gal fuselage tank when full was the main culprit in the wing failure problems. When the tank was below half full their were no longitudinally unstability problems reported, in high g pullouts etc.

Maximum permissible dive speed for a P-51D was *505mph IAS below 9000ft, & 300mph IAS (539mph TAS) @ 35000ft. Maximum allowed engine overspeed in a dive was 3300 RPM (or 10% over normal maximum).

The P-51D was put thru extensive dive tests @ *Wright field in 1944 with 3 test pilots. The P-51s were equipped with a MACH meter to evaluate the effects of compressibility:, buffeting, vibration, control force changes etc. .

Tests were conducted from 35000ft, Initial dives, showed the onset of problems @ just under Mach.75, additional tests pushed the P-51 to Mach.77, .79, And finaly to Mach.83 (605mph TAS).

As mach increased compressibility effects became more violent, but the P-51 was still controlable, and able to pull out etc. @ Mach.83 the effects were so strong that tests were ended. The test P-51 @ Mach .83 pulled out but suffered extensive structural damage and was written off, after landing.

Not one instance of wing shedding in these tests.

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand pp.343 - 344.

Also if these wing shredding incidents were as common as some would have it with the P-51 in dives etc , then why; was it not present, on the the A-36? which was an P-51 used as a dive bomber, and not one incedent of longitudinally unstability or 'wing shredding' was reported, operationaly Ie, an single A-36 of the 27th FBG flew 150 missions with not one incident.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

ZG77_Nagual
05-31-2004, 09:16 PM
My point was only that such failures occur - moreover they occur in all the planes in the simm that have great high speed elevator response.

As for the mustang - I've seen several sources say it did have a problem and that it was traced to the landing gear partially descending sometimes during high speed pullouts - it was corrected with some kind of latch. Hadn't heard the tank was related to the wing problem - only that it made the plane edgey till with was burned off. Obviously there were structural failures in production machines - otherwise why the accounts? As for the a36 - it did have dive brakes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and had a number of structural differences.
My goal wasn't to fault the mustang in particular however - only to point out that it did have high G structural failures - and that it is not the only plane modeled thus in the simm. Personally I think the problem accounts with the mustang are probably more production than design problems.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-31-2004, 11:15 PM
Salute

All planes should be subject to wings coming off when they pullout at higher than their rated speed.

There were no problems with the P-51 and wings being lost in pullouts when the behind the seat tank was 1/2 full or less. If the aircraft is at 3/4 fuel, there should be no problem as long as the aircraft does not exceed its 505 mph, (808 kph) rated speed. It could dive to that speed and pullout.

If the P-51 is losing it wings at lower speeds, and the behind the seat tank is not full, then there is a problem with the modelling.

If the aircraft is following a maneuvering 190, there should also be no problem. A 190 would lose elevator authority before it would reach speeds that a P-51 which is following it could come apart at.

Either the 190 has too high elevator authority, or the P-51 is too fragile.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Tue June 01 2004 at 12:42 AM.]

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2004, 11:21 PM
No problem with the moddeling other than it is not yet detailed enough to calculate the exact
position and momentum of every atom in the aircraft's structure and sum the results for
overall aircraft behavior.

...wait until Next Sim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mmm, P~51 seems the only one so far with this structure thing modded, possibly Ta as I just lost one (1) wing on
pullout test. Could not get anything for P~47. But then you need the ultra high speed elevator authority to do this.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

GR142-Pipper
06-01-2004, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gryphonne:
No offense but this just sounds like a case of my stang-should-be-better-than-any-other-plane-syndrome. (...snip...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, this is a legitimate point. It has occurred to me as well with very little stick force. I was flying along and my P-51 simply exploded unexpectedly pretty much out of the blue (pardon the pun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif).

GR142-Pipper

PzKpfw
06-01-2004, 01:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
My point was only that such failures occur - moreover they occur in all the planes in the simm that have great high speed elevator response.

As for the mustang - I've seen several sources say it did have a problem and that it was traced to the landing gear partially descending sometimes during high speed pullouts - it was corrected with some kind of latch. Hadn't heard the tank was related to the wing problem - only that it made the plane edgey till with was burned off. Obviously there were structural failures in production machines - otherwise why the accounts? As for the a36 - it did have dive brakes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and had a number of structural differences.
My goal wasn't to fault the mustang in particular however - only to point out that it did have high G structural failures - and that it is not the only plane modeled thus in the simm. Personally I think the problem accounts with the mustang are probably more production than design problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Nagual..

after going through Dean's AHT, & O'leary's NAA P-51 Mustang, on this issue combining both works data it's evident when the 85 gallon fuselage tank, was more then half full, it shifted COG which made the P-51 longitudinally unstable.

Which made high speed pull outs dangerous, as a stick reversal occured , which if not opposed by the pilot, would put the P-51 into an 'accelerated condition' and the wings would fail at the inboard end of the gun bays. When the tank was less then half full, their were no problems with longitudinally unstability etc.

Concerning the A-36A changes incorperated according to AHT were: new engine varient, aluminum propeller blades instead of steel, dive flaps, 6 x .50, wing shackles for bombs/drop tanks no strructional diferences are listed in AHT, or O'leary's NAA P-51 for the A-36A that I can find.

Operationaly the A-36A maintained 390mph dives with DFs deployed & carrying 2 X 500lb bombs usualy from a 90? dive from 8000ft. Most operational A-36A also had their DFs disabled as well. In comparison the purpose built Ju-87 was limited to 350mph dive speeds.

Had wing shredding been a problem of the airframe it would have appeared in the A-36A as well. In fact I can find no data on any Allison P-51 haveing any of the COG longitudinally unstability, problems. The problems only seem to appear in the Merlin engine P-51s after instalation of the 85 gal fuselage tank.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue June 01 2004 at 02:36 PM.]

LuftLuver
06-01-2004, 02:31 AM
Did some informal testing. Some German models do shed their wings, but it seems at a higher speed. For example, I was able to dive a 190A6 beyond 820kph and yank hard back on the stick. Not only did the wings not come off, but I did a quick U turn and shot straight back up. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif I think the P47 may be guilty of this as well, though I did not test it.

I also did a number of tests with the P51D and the amount of stick movement it will tolerate is a bit higher than what I've been willing to try in a dogfight. Moderate stick movement is still allowed at 750kph plus. Just remember to only make stick movements that are absolutely essential, and you may have to give up your gun solution.

I think high speed dives will divide online fighter jocks into daredevils and chickens. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

Cyrano
06-01-2004, 04:03 AM
As I see it implementing this "wing breakup" feature even if accurate is bad for game balance. The reason being that the other real feature has not been implemented, that is the P51's dive speed. According to numerous sources the P51 could outdive any German plane. This as we all know is not in the game. Therefore a German plane can dive, maintain relative distance and upon reaching 750+ airspeed pull up and hope the 51 behind him does the same thing. I've seen it done and in fact it's becoming a standard evasion technique for the FW's in particular.

LEXX_Luthor
06-01-2004, 04:09 AM
Yes, P~47 is GUILTY.

Also, I could not get Dora to break up at pullout, and Fw certainly has the elevator authority to do so (I am being sloppy here as I did not spend time). Ta152 however, I did lose a wing on pullup, but it was after I was losing ailerons and stuff anyway. Wondering if this Feature was placed on P~51 alone just for experimental purposes until Next Patch (remember it was not in Readme). mmm.

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Tue June 01 2004 at 03:36 AM.]

KaRaYa-X
06-01-2004, 06:14 AM
Here's your evidence:

"The puzzling thing about Mustang airframe failure was that it could not be pinpointed to any one area and was sometimes encountered in brand-new aircraft that had not undergone any known flight strain. Engines tore loose from fuselages, wings were shed, and empennages crumpled "

-Roger Freeman, Mustang at war

"Most serious of all was structural failure. Occasionally the wings came off Mustangs in a high-speed dive. There were two main causes for this. At very high speeds, the large doors of the ammunition bays began to bulge outwards. This distorted the wing to the stage where stresses imposed were too great, and it parted company with the fuselage. The second cause was a tendency for the undercarriage to extend in flight, causing abnormal loads on the wing"

-Mike Spick, Great Aircraft of WW2

"One wing was lost directly over the airfield at Madna, Italy in the fall of 1944. The airplane and pilot went straight into the ground not far from the control tower. One other loss occurred there during an afternoon 'rat race.' Coincidentally we were discussing this wing loss with Johnny Typer, the civilian representative from NAA at the time. He was adamant that no-one could pull the wings off a P-51. No sooner had he made that remark than I heard behind me the dull thumps of two wings separating. He asked 'What's that?' and I answered that it had happened again. He asked how I knew, to which I replied, 'Once you've heard that sound, you'll never forget it." We watched as the litter and tumbling wings fell slowly to the ground, long after the fuselage and pilot had crashed - an unforgettable sight and feeling"

-Lt Col William Coloney 52 FG


'The mustang (p51) This was the best American fighter because of its long range,climb and dive characteristics, fire power and maneuverability.It was very vulnerbale to cannon fire.It would break up during very violent dives and maneuvers.'


"A Mustang III Ser No KH 505 was allocated to the RAE for high speed research, and this showed up some unpleasant compressibility effects, and indeed the aircraft was eventually lost in failing to recover fro a high mach number dive, killing the Canadian pilot, S/Ldr. E.B.Gale.
In such dives compressibility effects set in at M=0.71 with a slight vibration of the aircraft and buffeting of the controls, accompanied by a slight nose down pitching moment. These symptoms increased in intensity up to M=0.75 which was the limit imposed for service use. Above M=0.75 a porposing motion started and increased in intensity together with the other effects up to M=0.8, when nose down pitch became so strong that it required a two handed pull force for recovery."

-Wings of the Weird and Wonderful Vol 2 by Eric Brown


"Before the next flight a Machmeter was fitted to the aircraft, and as instructed I climbed to 35000 ft, carried out a 2min level run at full power and trimed the aircraft before pushing over into a 30 degree dive. At Mach=0.72 the aircraft began to buffet slightly and pitch nose down, requiring a strong pull force to maintain the dive angle. At Mach=0.73 the buffeting increased severly and the nose down pitch was so strong that it needed a full-blooded two-handed pull to keep the dive angle constant. I had to hang on grimly in this situation, unable to throttle back until Mach number decreased as altitude was lost. The pull out was not effected until 8000ft. Analysis showed that a dive to Mach=0.74 would almost certainly be a graveyard dive".

-Testing for Combat by Eric Brown.
This relates to a P47D seconded to the RAE Boscombe Down, from the 8th Air Force.


These are comments on the P51 by RAF and USAAF personell.

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

SeaFireLIV
06-01-2004, 07:00 AM
It always amazes me how one side can come up with convincing arguments FOR and the other side comes up with convincing arguments AGAINST.

If only we had true qualified personell who could post here for us, but then they would be too busy doing REAL WORK to come here and post.

My personal view is that nothing`s perfect and no matter how many deny it there`s obvious personal bias going on. In reality I believe the P51, as well as other aircraft would have had such wing break problems, etc under extreme heavy G load violent manouevers.

I hope this does not degenerate into a childish THEM vs WE farce.

SeaFireLIV...


http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/whereishe.jpg

WHERE is he???

LEXX_Luthor
06-01-2004, 07:24 AM
Now that Oleg has a real baby he may soon know the tricks to parenting the babies here.

Webboard of the milk fed dogfighters



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

PzKpfw
06-01-2004, 08:09 AM
Karaya no one is disputeing the P-51B/C/D could suffer structuaral failures Ie, wing failure at the inboard end of the gun bays etc. That has already been conceded along with the cause of these lossses being isolated & detailed as described above. We also know other incidents of P-51's RTB with structural damage & even breaking up, in manouvering were also blamed on G-suits as well.

As to the quotes, they are interesting & have been posted in the past on every P-51 thread to date, typicly to try & show the P-51 was universily structuraly unsound etc. But not one of these quotes; even mention how much fuel was in the fuselage tank when the incident occured.

I can provide numerous seprate quotes from US pilots detailing the P-51 diveing with the Bf 109G etc & from HA & surviving the pull out, whereas the Bf 109s wing/wings ripped off.

Does this prove the Bf 109 was prone to wing shedding as well?, would it be fair for me based on these reports to label the Bf 109 as structuraly unsound in dives as well?.



Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue June 01 2004 at 09:58 AM.]

ZG77_Nagual
06-01-2004, 08:19 AM
Thanks for your, as allways, informed reply John. I wish I could dig up the sources for the landing gear issue. I remember reading an hypothesis that the failure was caused by cumulative stress - but then the gear door issue came up. There's the famous story of a tech from NA being onsite with a squadron in the ET - arguing the issue with the commander I think - when they heard a loud bang and a mustang went in sans wing. Certainly would'nt take many of those to rattle your cage if you were flying em. (and start the rumor mill!!)

I think we can probably conclude that there were 'teething problems' and occassional dramatic structural failures for one reason or another. Maybe a few more in the begining than in other types - for reasons ranging from the thing going really fast in dives and getting fatigued, to the internal tank and converting to a bubble to just cranking alot of em out really fast. As for fundamental design flaws - no more than other birds working out the bugs - but rushed into production for sure.

As for the Dora not failing - mine has several times - right about where the mustang does. The mustang does recover better than the 109 in dives and I like the wing coming off better than the thing just blowing up like it used too! Ki84 seems to lose it about the same time as the mustang near as I can tell. I've not tested it enough to say anything definite about speeds - but there are variables. For example one time I lost a wing in the dora during a diving spiral turn - I appeard to be just starting to grey out a bit when she let loose - it was not an abrupt maneuver. Other times I've had no trouble at that speed.

As for questions about the implementation of structural failure - I think it's absolutely dynamite. There needs to be some limit placed on these planes at high speed and it certainly contributes to realism.

KaRaYa-X
06-01-2004, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Karaya no one is disputeing the P-51B/C/D could suffer structuaral failures Ie, wing failure at the inboard end of the gun bays etc. That has already been conceded along with the cause of these lossses being isolated & detailed as described above. We also know other incidents of P-51's RTB with structural damage & even breaking up, in manouvering were also blamed on G-suits as well.

As to the quotes, they are interesting & have been posted in the past on every P-51 thread to date, typicly to try & show the P-51 was universily structuraly unsound etc. But not one of these quotes; even mention how much fuel was in the fuselage tank when the incident occured.

I can provide numerous seprate quotes from US pilots detailing the P-51 diveing with the Bf 109G etc & from HA & surviving the pull out, whereas the Bf 109s wing/wings ripped off.

Does this empericly prove the Bf 109 was prone to wing shedding as well?, would it be fair for me based on these reports to label the Bf 109 as structuraly unsound in dives as well?.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quotes I posted were intended to show that it WAS possible to rip the wings off of a Mustang in real life (from time to time) if you pull too much at a certain speed. Of course it wouldn't happen every single time you went into a dive in a Mustang.

Those "Mustang and Bf109G go into dive --&gt; Mustang survives, Bf109G is scrapmetal" incidents are a totally different story because they are results of the high speed handling of both planes. Of course the Mustang had a much better high speed handling and was therefore much easier to pull out from a dive. The Bf109 on the other hand probably reaches it's critical Mach number faster just because it can't pull up fast enough to get out of this dangerous situation. Every airframe has its limit and if it is reached your plane will probably desintegrate real fast. On the other hand you will probably NEVER come across an incident where a Bf109 lost its wings during a high speed turn - simply because it cannot pull enough G at these speeds. The Mustang however can...


Conclusion: The Mustang mostly lost its wings because the pilot pulled out of a dive too hard whereas the Bf109 lost its wings in most cases because it simply got too fast...

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

LuftLuver
06-01-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
It would break up during very violent dives and maneuvers--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Say it with me. Very Violent Dives and Maneuvers. It's fun, say it again. Very Violent Dives and Maneuvers.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

BigKahuna_GS
06-01-2004, 04:56 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
CHDT------Grenze Flügelbruch: limit for wing break.
__________________________________________________ _______________________


Thanks for the chart CHDT.

Is that correct 10.7 g's is when Grenze Flügelbruch occurs ?

The chart showed the speed at well over 500 mph at .76 mach.

Could you elaborate on the chart some more please ?



I like the idea of structeral limits but find it ironic that US planes known for their dive superiority over german aircraft will break up if they follow german a/c through the same manuevers at high speed. Something seems amiss here.

I have been to several WW2 Fighter Pilot Symposiums, some had german aces present like Gunther Rall. Rall was at Santa Monica Air Museum several years ago and said US planes had dive superiority,ie: faster dive acceleration & greater control at high speed, this supports what US pilots said. Now it looks like one of the best assets of US planes has been turned against it.


________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

TBS_TWIGTOTO
06-01-2004, 07:00 PM
The FB P-51 appears much more vulnerable to wing-shedding at ~0 to 2500meters. At 5000-10000 meters the P51 will whip around a lot more - in fact at over 1000km/hr at 8000 meters I didn't get the wing off - yet 500 meters, it can be done at 750km/hr.

I think Oleg programmed in an "altitude" effect.

To get the wing off at the lower altitude, my observation is that it is easier or facilitated by a combined aileron or elevator input - coupled with some rudder input. Straight elevator pulls or aileron rolls alone, unless you "yank" the elevator hard at the high speed, low altitude, alone don't do the deed.

What is so bizarre, is why would Oleg experiment with structural failures such as these, when one can fly the P-51, Me109, the 190, the La's, the Yaks, and land them even - with the rudder, the elevator, event the vertical stabilizers completely shot off and missing !!!!

Why don't simple damages to these in any and all planes cause catastrophic out of control spins ??????

This is much more fundamentally missing in FB/AEP - and needs a higher priority to fix than breaking wings off at different altitudes...

" Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting ": Captain David McCampbell, USN, leading U.S. Navy ace in W.W.II, who holds the record for 9 air to air fighter kills in one sortie in 1800 round 50 caliber Hellcat

FA_Maddog
06-02-2004, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TBS_TWIGTOTO:
The FB P-51 appears much more vulnerable to wing-shedding at ~0 to 2500meters. At 5000-10000 meters the P51 will whip around a lot more - in fact at over 1000km/hr at 8000 meters I didn't get the wing off - yet 500 meters, it can be done at 750km/hr.

I think Oleg programmed in an "altitude" effect.

To get the wing off at the lower altitude, my observation is that it is easier or facilitated by a combined aileron or elevator input - coupled with some rudder input. Straight elevator pulls or aileron rolls alone, unless you "yank" the elevator hard at the high speed, low altitude, alone don't do the deed.

What is so bizarre, is why would Oleg experiment with structural failures such as these, when one can fly the P-51, Me109, the 190, the La's, the Yaks, and land them even - with the rudder, the elevator, event the vertical stabilizers completely shot off and missing !!!!

Why don't simple damages to these in any and all planes cause catastrophic out of control spins ??????

This is much more fundamentally missing in FB/AEP - and needs a higher priority to fix than breaking wings off at different altitudes...

" Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting ": Captain David McCampbell, USN, leading U.S. Navy ace in W.W.II, who holds the record for 9 air to air fighter kills in one sortie in 1800 round 50 caliber Hellcat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


TWIG fuel has alot to do with it also. Low fuel (25%) means higher wing failure. I would have thought a higher fuel load would cause more stress on the wings.

BigKahuna_GS
06-03-2004, 02:58 AM
S!


It just happened again tonight while online, at a speed of 670kph while following a 109, my wing just pops off. The 109 didn't know I was there and was not taking evasive action, it simply pulled up easily to go after a Spitfire it was following.

How can one plane be unaffected and the other lose its wing when they are both near co-speed ?

670kph does not seem all that fast.



_____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

LEXX_Luthor
06-03-2004, 03:06 AM
cos you pulled harder than the Fb109 and that 109 does not have the elevator authority you have to break up in a dive it seems. Also you were sloppy enough to forget to say what plane you were flying. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Wing comes off Ki~84 pull up too, tried it tonight.


Webboard of the milk fed internet dogfighters


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

VOL_Hans
06-03-2004, 03:42 AM
In response to the origional post (Too lazy to read through all this...)

I have pushed the P-51 to higher speeds, not by much, but faster, and can assure you your speed alone will not do it. You're overstressing the wings!

As for following 190's and 109's in dives... I'm not going to make any comments on the 190. I have heard that it's dive speed was "unlimited", i've also heard Mach 0.80 quoted.

As for the Bf-109...There's a chance you shouldn't be able to catch it. [All data from ]virtualpilots.fi ] (http://www.virtualpilots.fi)

For the "Me-109" [No version given] Mach 0.79 stock, Mach 0.80 "slightly modified"

Mach 0.805 for "tall tail" Bf-109's [I belive meaning G-6Late and beyond.]

The official limit for the Bf-109G was 750kmh, Finnish fighter ace Ky¶sti Karhila [32 kills] flew one at least as fast as 850kmh.

Antti Tani and Jussi Huotari [21.5, and 17 kills] say that the vertical dive was an exelent escape manuver. Tani flew one "800kmh plus". But, please note that the same two pilots talk about a pilot named Lauri M¤itt¤l¤ who put too many G's on the plane while performing this manuver, and ripped the tailplane off.

Valte Estama flew a Bf-109G-6, after takeing combat damage, he dove to put out an oil fire, his speed exceeded 950kmh.

Franz Stigler flew as fast as750kmh, and says that the 109's wings took as much as 12g's

Also, one P-51 Mustang pilot, Robert C.Curtis, says that the P-51D could not stay with Bf-109's in a dive due to the canopy and wing changes, but B and C's could.

Draw your own conclusions, but, theres lots to think about.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

[This message was edited by VOL_Hans on Thu June 03 2004 at 02:50 AM.]

BigKahuna_GS
06-03-2004, 05:54 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ _________________________
LEXX_Luthor

posted 03-06-04 02:06
cos you pulled harder than the Fb109 and that 109 does not have the elevator authority you have to break up in a dive it seems. Also you were sloppy enough to forget to say what plane you were flying.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Excuse me Lexx I forgot this was a P51 thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I was flying a P51D-20NA @ at a speed of 670kph while following a 109. There was no grayout/blackout and I recall not moving the stick much at all. The 109 did not know I was there and was not taking evasive actions---there was no sudden or violent change of direction. Just my broken wing and wondering what the Heck just happened.

It all seemed pretty strange that it happened.

___________



__________________________________________________ _______________________
VOL_Hans -- As for following 190's and 109's in dives... I'm not going to make any comments on the 190. I have heard that it's dive speed was "unlimited", i've also heard Mach 0.80 quoted.
As for the Bf-109...There's a chance you shouldn't be able to catch it. [All data from ]virtualpilots.fi ]
For the "Me-109" [No version given] Mach 0.79 stock, Mach 0.80 "slightly modified"
Mach 0.805 for "tall tail" Bf-109's [I belive meaning G-6Late and beyond.]
The official limit for the Bf-109G was 750kmh, Finnish fighter ace Ky¶sti Karhila [32 kills] flew one at least as fast as 850kmh.
Antti Tani and Jussi Huotari [21.5, and 17 kills] say that the vertical dive was an exelent escape manuver. Tani flew one "800kmh plus". But, please note that the same two pilots talk about a pilot named Lauri M¤itt¤l¤ who put too many G's on the plane while performing this manuver, and ripped the tailplane off.
Valte Estama flew a Bf-109G-6, after takeing combat damage, he dove to put out an oil fire, his speed exceeded 950kmh.
Franz Stigler flew as fast as750kmh, and says that the 109's wings took as much as 12g's
__________________________________________________ ___________________________



There are anomaly's and then there is consensus. The overall consensus from all sources; Brits, US and Germans is the P51, P38 and P47 had dive superiority over german aircraft. That has not been modeled in FB/AEP.

I heard Luftwaffe ace Gunther Rall say it from his own mouth at the Santa Monica Flight Museum several years ago.


From a JG26 Pilot :

Fw 190D pilot Lt Karl Heinz Ossenkop of JG 26 comparing their crate to the opposition.

Spitfire: the D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive. It was slightly inferior in turns.

Tempest: almost equal in level flight, a lengthy pursuit was usually fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better, but was inferior in a dive.

Mustang: the two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers, which was an advantage to us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather faster in a dive.

Thunderbolt: with the Dora-9 we had advantages in level flight, climb and turn. We were hopelessly inferior in a dive.


You'll notice the german pilot saying the P51D was "rather faster in a dive" over a 190D-9 and "hopelessly inferior in a dive" against the P47D. The only dive adavantage for US fighters in FB/AEP is a slight speed advantage near the deck from power diving from 25,000ft/7500m. That is not dive superiority.



Walter Konantz 55th FG September 1944*:

I looked up just in time to see fifty or sixty ME-109s streaming through our formation in a forty-five degree dive with their guns fireing. Fortunately, none had picked me as a target but one crossed right in front of me fireing at a Mustang below and to my left.

These were te first enemy airplanes I had ever laid eyes on and buck fever and instinct caused me to roll over in a dive after the ME-109. He saw me comeing and steepened his dive to the vertical.

We both now headed straight down from 24,000 feet on a wide open power dive. Both airplanes were very skittish from extremely high speed and since I was not strapped in, the slightest movement of the stick caused me to leave the seat and hit the canopy above. I was in a neutral-G situation, just floating inside the cockpit.

We passed through a layer of slight turbulence and I felt like a basketball being dribbled down the court. The ME-109 was haveing as much trouble as me, his plane was bucking and skidding as both of us were nearing compressibility, the limiting speed at which the plane no longer responds to the controls.

At 10,000 feet, I initiated a steady four-G pullout and the ME-109 started to pull out about the same time. But before he had raised his nose more then 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 pull-out I glanced at the airspeed indicator and saw the needle on 600 miles an hour, ninety-five per hour over the red-line speed of 505.

*See: Astor Gerald. The Mighty Eighth p.365



________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

VOL_Hans
06-03-2004, 01:33 PM
Now, please notice that you talk only about the 190D-9 when makeing dive comparisons. As for the comparison to the P-47...

Test pilot Eric Brown stated that at Mach0.73 the P-47 became uncontrolable, and that a dive to mach0.74 would be a "Graveyard Dive".

How those P-47's managed to keep up with the 190's, that have a substantially higher maximum speed in a dive, I don't know. It could be that the P-47 simply accelerated to thier top speed faster.

As for the Bf-109 ripping off it's right wing off through the weel well, He was probably a physically stronger pilot [Like M¤itt¤l¤] who managed to pull harder on the stick, overload the wings, and...*SNAP!*

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
06-03-2004, 01:58 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Vol Hans--It could be that the P-47 simply accelerated to thier top speed faster.
__________________________________________________ _______________________


DING DING DING DING ---We have a winner !


The overall consensus from Brit, US and German pilots was that US planes had dive superiority. Also Like I said it before---I heard this directly from Gunther Rall himself that US planes dove faster.

Vol Hans it says the dive speed of the 190 was "unlimited" does that sound far-fetched to you ? [All data from ]virtualpilots.fi ]


This article also says that vertical dives were an excellent escape maneuver---- against-who? The germans told their pilots not to try and dive away from US planes especially the P47. So some of this fly's in the face of what was commonly known by all sides.


Dive acceleration---the strongest feature of all US planes is too slow there is no separation during the dive until your at the end of a 25,000ft dive on the deck with a little speed difference.

In the artical about Eric Hartman saying that the P51 had a hard time following his 109 in a vertical climb--it also says that the P51 had a 60mph speed advantage in a dive. [All data from ]virtualpilots.fi ]


Lawrence Thompson
=============
"I fired two very long bursts, probably five seconds each (P-51 has ammo for about 18 seconds of continuous bursts for four machine guns, the remaining two machine guns will shoot for about 24 seconds). I noticed that part of his engine cowling flew off and he immediately broke off his attack on the lead P-51. I check my rear view mirrors and there's nothing behind me now; somehow, I have managed to lose the Me109 following me, probably because the diving speed of the P-51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109."

In Shaws Fighter Combat Manuvering it also says US planes had dive superiority.

Please consider what the overall consensus of an issue is not just isolated personal experiences.


___________________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

PzKpfw
06-03-2004, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:

Test pilot Eric Brown stated that at Mach0.73 the P-47 became uncontrolable, and that a dive to mach0.74 would be a "Graveyard Dive".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cpt Eric Brown has made several statements concerning the P-51, that do not compare to US wartime test results especialy concerning dive speeds, so I'm not suprised to see the above.

Regarding the P-47 it had a 500mph IAS dive limit speed (601mph TAS) @ 25,000. 400mph IAS above 25,000ft. Reccomended pullout altitude from 25,000ft was 12,000ft Dive speed represented Mach 0.82.

Not to mention the later addition of dive flaps, test pilots reported @ 400mph IAS they could let go the stick, & the P-47 would pull it'self out of the dive.

Then we have the countless P-47 pilot statements that no German fighter could stay with a P-47 in a dive. Ie, Our evasive action in combat was to dive until you saw 500mph IAS and you could be sure there was no one behind you any longer.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

BigKahuna_GS
06-03-2004, 02:24 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ ____________________
Vol Hans--Now, please notice that you talk only about the 190D-9 when makeing dive comparisons. As for the comparison to the P-47...
Test pilot Eric Brown stated that at Mach0.73 the P-47 became uncontrolable, and that a dive to mach0.74 would be a "Graveyard Dive".
__________________________________________________ _______________________


P47 pilots routinely pushed their Jugs to Mach .74. The Jug would compress and regain control again between 8-10,000ft. The 56th fighter group did this all the time---there was no "graveyard dive". With all due respect to Eric Brown maybe he should have flown the Jug with people who actually flew it in combat.


_

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Vol Hans--How those P-47's managed to keep up with the 190's, that have a substantially higher maximum speed in a dive, I don't know. It could be that the P-47 simply accelerated to thier top speed faster.
__________________________________________________ _______________________


The 2 fastest WW2 prop planes in a dive were the P38 & P47. You would be hard pressed to find evidence that disputed this.


___________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

VOL_Hans
06-03-2004, 04:05 PM
OK, lets go over this again:

If the P-47 had simply accelerated to it's top dive speed faster, that does not mean that with added time, the 190 could not in fact go faster. It simply means that the P-47 is at it's limit of Mach0.73 before the 190 has reached that speed, and closed the gap as the 190 continues to accelerate to it's rated limit of Mach0.80

As for dive speed in the 190 being "unlimited". The Fw-190A was dive tested by a pilot in JG-26 when they received thier new 190's. He climbed it to it's ceiling, and pointed the nose to the earth in a vertical dive. Apparently the plane neared Mach-1, and the propellor lost effectiveness and turned into a speed brake. Essentially, there was no way to over speed a 190 in a dive.

I don't recall the pilots name, but, i'll stir through to find it.

The vertical dive as an escape manuver was used by Finnish pilots, obviously against Soviet aircraft. But it still shows that the Bf-109 had a strong enough structure to fly as fast a 950kmh.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

PzKpfw
06-03-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
OK, lets go over this again:

If the P-47 had simply accelerated to it's top dive speed faster, that does not mean that with added time, the 190 could not in fact go faster. It simply means that the P-47 is at it's limit of Mach0.73 before the 190 has reached that speed, and closed the gap as the 190 continues to accelerate to it's rated limit of Mach0.80

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-47 did not have an Mach limit of 0.73 etc, placard dive limit from 25000ft was 500mph IAS (601mph TAS) 0.82 Mach.

The Fw 190 dive incident you refer to was done by an ex Lufthansa member of JG 54 (a rather famous one at that, who was later killed in the West with 118 victories IIRC)on the Eastren Front who decided to try an 'experiment' by climbing his A-4 to max ceiling, then dove straight down & barely pulled out.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

VOL_Hans
06-03-2004, 06:04 PM
PzKpfw: For some reason, I want to say Albin Wolf did it, but, i'm not exactly sure if that was the correct pilot...

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

VFA-195 Snacky
06-03-2004, 08:02 PM
Havok I think you misunderstood me so let me say this again. I am not saying your wrong, just that the constant bickering and complaining about aircraft seems to effect decisions made by the dev team. That's all it wasn't a personal dig at you so don't take it personally.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snacky1:
IMO it's the constant bickering on these boards that determines changes being made to certain aircraft. I'm not saying you don't have a legit gripe because you very well could have one, but it just looks like the constant whining on this forum seems to influence decisions made in the sim when it should be done on data and real world accounts only, not what 13 year old buddy thinks.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dont have a 13 year old buddy Im 30 years old with 3 sons and 1 daughter. ( So that clears up that part for ya)

Im not whining. I would like to know why the Mustang falls apart now when trying to turn in a dive at speeds above 750kph. If someone can post evidence that the Mustang had this problem then so be it. I want accurate FMs and by changing dramatically from one patch to another does not halp that matter.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

http://www.vmf-214.net
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**

Flydutch
06-04-2004, 03:30 AM
If structual damage modeling is added to this sim:

It would be Great news!

A improvement towards realism!

About time!

Wouldn't it be a feature worth mentioning as a new level in the development in this sim?

I have asked Maddox overthe years for structual damage to be featured.
Real Combat WWII veterans will tell you that losing there wings or tail section was a greater fear then beeing actualy beeing shot down during dogfights (This shows again that the biggest enemy is your own fear)
Losing parts of the A/C or control over it is always a risk in any aircraft when the plane is pushed towards it's stresslevel or flight caracteristics.
Especialy military aircraft that are in a race to give the highest performance and out pace/maneuvre the enemy A/C, many are the aircraft types that lost tail sections like the early Me 109 F, the Hawker Typhoon who later got strenghtened tail sections. but under extreme conditons even strong aircraft like the P-47 would lose it wings when trying to climb out of a bombing dive without the bombs dropped.

So I would hope to hear from the devellopers them self if they really took this sim one step further towards realism!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Its happened to me 4 times now. Im diving with a FW following its manuvers and I lose my wing. Cant follow BFs or FWs in high speed dives and turn now or you loose you wing. Seeing how high speed manuverabilty is one of the Mustangs greatest strengths I find this very unaccurate. I really hope you fix this obvious bug. How can it go from what it was in the first free addon to what it is now? I mean how can you justify changing it so many times if you say its right in the beginning? (That goes for all planes) Best example of dramatic changes to FM is the FW of IL-2 to the FW we have now IMO.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

http://www.vmf-214.net
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BigKahuna_GS
06-04-2004, 11:01 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ _________________________
Cpt Eric Brown has made several statements concerning the P-51, that do not compare to US wartime test results especialy concerning dive speeds, so I'm not suprised to see the above.

Regarding the P-47 it had a 500mph IAS dive limit speed (601mph TAS) @ 25,000. 400mph IAS above 25,000ft. Reccomended pullout altitude from 25,000ft was 12,000ft Dive speed represented Mach 0.82.

Not to mention the later addition of dive flaps, test pilots reported @ 400mph IAS they could let go the stick, & the P-47 would pull it'self out of the dive.

Then we have the countless P-47 pilot statements that no German fighter could stay with a P-47 in a dive. Ie, Our evasive action in combat was to dive until you saw 500mph IAS and you could be sure there was no one behind you any longer.


Regards, John Waters

__________________________________________________ ______________________



Very well said John. I stll cant believe the arguments over US planes having dive superiority after all these years and so much data from all sides.



______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

RAF74_Buzzsaw
06-04-2004, 12:43 PM
Salute

The Finnish manuals for both the G2 and G6 list a MAXIMUM dive speed of 750 kph or 468 mph. Those are manuals written by the Finns themselves and for the guidelines of their pilots. 950 kph is mentioned nowhere, and the suggestion that this was the dive speed for these 109G's is clearly wrong.

Finnish manuals here:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Manuals.html

As far as the P-47 is concerned, the maximum dive speed with recovery tabs was 550 mph or 880 kph. The earlier models were also good structurally to this speed, only the onset of compressibility at higher altitudes restricted U.S. pilot's being ok'd to dive to these speeds.

WWMaxGunz
06-04-2004, 01:46 PM
So if a P-47 and a 190 were side by side at combat speed and both nosed down steeply
into near vertical dives then the P-47 should just leave the 190 behind?

Is that what this dive advantage thing means?


Neal

k5054
06-04-2004, 03:24 PM
Tell me the entry speed, altitude and dive angle and I'll give you a calculated summary of what happens, up to the 500mph mark. But I'll tell you now you don't see big extensions/closure in a short duration dive, and the are no long duration dives in these a/c.

GR142-Pipper
06-04-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
(...snip...)In reality I believe the P51, as well as other aircraft would have had such wing break problems, etc under extreme heavy G load violent manouevers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You would be right. All aircraft can be overstressed with fighters and fighter bombers being the most susceptible because they operate in a high G environment.

It would be better if the aircraft are going to be modeled for overstressing to do them all or do none until more aircraft on each side have this included. Don't just do one aircraft (regardless if it's allied or axis).

GR142-Pipper

BigKahuna_GS
06-04-2004, 04:45 PM
S!

I talked to Oleg and he said the stress point for all aircraft is supposed to be 15g's. I did some testing trying to break aircraft at high speed and I also ran across german planes that even when fully trimmed nose high could withstand violent manuevers without breaking wings or blacking out :


Please no flames just test data, and please try this for yourself. I did about 50 quick dives from 3000m with the P51D,190A6,190D9,109G6 A/S. During the dive the object was to break the plane-cause a wing failure. During this time, I also saw some interesting reactions to speed & G related blackout or lack there of.

I have just been doing some short tests to figure out how the new structural limits work. I pulled the joystick full straight back as a quick and violent maneuver to purposely induce wing failure. Because the P51 has more positive elevator authority, I gave german planes more positive trim until I could induce a wing failure. I don't have a trim wheel, so these were taps of the keyboard. I used the islands map and a 25% fuel load for all planes. Here is what I've found so far :

P51D wing failure 100% of the time at 670kph neutral trim

190A6 wing failure about 1 out every 3 attempts at 670kph with 20 taps of nose up trim

190D9 (1945) wing failure about 1 out of every 4 attempts at 670kph with 30 taps nose up trim

109G6 A/S got to 50 taps nose up trim and could not make the wing fail until 750kph at around 1 out of every 4 attempts.
At 770kph wing failure was at around 95%. Thats 100kph faster than the Mustang for wing failure with probably full trim.

At 720kph with 50 taps of nose up trim and full stick pull back, I could not get a black out--just a bad gray out in the 109 --that's at 447mph with full stick and probably full trim----that just can't be right.

Would 50 taps of the keyboard be full trim ?

SPEED CONVERSION
720 Kilometers per hour equals 447.387 Miles (statute) per hour

Luft pilots can you give this a try with the 109 and see what you come up with ? Generally speaking all these planes did much better than the 51 in the blackout/grayout department. What I don't understand is if the 109 had poor elevator response especially at high speed-how come it pulls up so well ?

I have tracks but dont know how to post them sorry.

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

LuftLuver
06-04-2004, 04:59 PM
&lt;S&gt; Kahuna.

I got your results almost to a T. I think this very well may be an error in coding for G factors in german planes. It is very telling that they don't black out as easily as US planes, and now they can sustain more violent moves at supposedly the same G's. Let's hope this is a coding error and the magnifico 1C team corrects this problem.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

BigKahuna_GS
06-04-2004, 05:19 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ ________________________
MaxGuns wrote--So if a P-47 and a 190 were side by side at combat speed and both nosed down steeply into near vertical dives then the P-47 should just leave the 190 behind?

Is that what this dive advantage thing means?
__________________________________________________ _________________________


Rgr that Maxguns. The 56th fighter squadron would turn that extra speed back into a nice zoom climb above the 190 with a hammerhead back down into the bandit--a basic SOP for them.



__________________________________________________ _______________________
Luft--I got your results almost to a T. I think this very well may be an error in coding for G factors in german planes. It is very telling that they don't black out as easily as US planes, and now they can sustain more violent moves at supposedly the same G's. Let's hope this is a coding error and the magnifico 1C team corrects this problem
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Rgr that Luft !

How could any plane do a violent max pull up when fully trimmed nose high @ 720kph and not stall, blackout or break a wing. In an exterior view of the track i did, the 109 is manuevering very hard with no side effects.

So they are getting the beast of all worlds, unlimited turning ability at very high speed without any consequences.

I thought that only happened in star wars.

Disappointing really.



__________________________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

VOL_Hans
06-04-2004, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

The Finnish manuals for both the G2 and G6 list a MAXIMUM dive speed of 750 kph or 468 mph. Those are manuals written by the Finns themselves and for the guidelines of their pilots. 950 kph is mentioned nowhere, and the suggestion that this was the dive speed for these 109G's is clearly wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The speed of 950kmh was a combat speed. It was not in the manual for the aircraft, and only one Bf-109 that I know of was ever flown that fast and recovered. I do belive that at the speed of 950kmh it has just as much to do with luck, and quality of the airframe as it does limits. I do feel that the speed of 800-850kmh would be a more acceptable limit for the Bf-109G in un-damaged and clean condition.

Bombs, a droptank attached, rocket tubes, gun pods, or any damage, and i'm sure that the plane would break apart around 800 or so, if not slower.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
06-04-2004, 06:00 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ _________________________
Vol Hans----The speed of 950kmh was a combat speed. It was not in the manual for the aircraft, and only one Bf-109 that I know of was ever flown that fast and recovered. I do belive that at the speed of 950kmh it has just as much to do with luck, and quality of the airframe as it does limits. I do feel that the speed of 800-850kmh would be a more acceptable limit for the Bf-109G in un-damaged and clean condition.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


This Eric Hartman story is qouted very often from that [All data from ]virtualpilots.fi ] Fin pilot site. I find it ironic that the 60mph dive speed adavantage of the Mustang is overlooked while listing 109 dive speeds.

Lawrence Thompson
=============
"I fired two very long bursts, probably five seconds each (P-51 has ammo for about 18 seconds of continuous bursts for four machine guns, the remaining two machine guns will shoot for about 24 seconds). I noticed that part of his engine cowling flew off and he immediately broke off his attack on the lead P-51. I check my rear view mirrors and there's nothing behind me now; somehow, I have managed to lose the Me109 following me, probably because the diving speed of the P-51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109."

In Shaws Fighter Combat Manuvering it also says US planes had dive superiority.


_________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

VOL_Hans
06-04-2004, 10:44 PM
There was another similar story, where the pilot of the P-51 refused to chase, saying that he thought the 109 could out dive his P-51

Going by sane, factory limits for the aircraft, which means keeping the 109 limited to a safe top speed of around 750-780kmh or so, then yes, the pony should catch it.

It seems to me that German pilots were simply less willing to push the limits of thier planes than Finnish pilots.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

WWMaxGunz
06-04-2004, 11:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


__________________________________________________ ________________________
MaxGuns wrote--So if a P-47 and a 190 were side by side at combat speed and both nosed down steeply into near vertical dives then the P-47 should just leave the 190 behind?

Is that what this dive advantage thing means?
__________________________________________________ _________________________


Rgr that Maxguns. The 56th fighter squadron would turn that extra speed back into a nice zoom climb above the 190 with a hammerhead back down into the bandit--a basic SOP for them.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you've got a little problem with interpretation of all those tales you been readin.
There's a lot of things they don't say. One report stands out a bit since it doesn't say
a bit less and that's the ADFU comparison with a P-47 and 190 side by side at 250mph and
into a 65 degree dive. You see, the 190 started out pulling a good bit of lead. The dive
ran from 10,000 fett down to 3,000 feet and the P-47 didn't catch the 190 till the bottom.
One thing not said was if the P-47 didn't catch the 190 at the start or during the pullout
although it was noted that the P-47 was moving "much faster" (how much isn't said either,
nor how fast either was going) and had a "much better" recovery andgle and zoom climb
following. In very short, the report leaned onto the side of the P-47 as did the test.

----------------------------

I will submit to you and K5054 that in a plane, a 30 degree dive is pretty damned steep.
Even 20 degrees isn't as shallow as numbers would suggest but rather a good dive for
picking up good speed. Either angle will let a plane get a good run and be far more
efficient. 45 degrees... well look out the cockpit when the nose is pointing 45 degrees
down and your plane is probably following a path of less steep angle due to the wings
being at a higher angle than the fuselage.

So try some comparisons at 30 degree dive angles maybe? Or even 45 degrees? As K5054
noted that with extreme steepness the acceleration due to gravity dominates until very
high speed is reached and that is the same for all planes.

I did note that on that same ADFU test that on level acceleration from 200mph the 190
started out with a big lead but close after 300mph the P-47 started closing fast and
then passed the 190. However I note that the P-47 went into WEP mode and I don't think
that the 190 in the test had. And the 190 was I think an captured A-4.

I don't dispute the stories but I do urge more care with interpretation and application
of them. Blanket use of stories is like an attempt to turn combat flying into a card game
of some kind where each player has good cards, bad cards, and some trumps. It doesn't
work that way.


Neal

k5054
06-05-2004, 01:35 PM
I don't know what this is worth, I really don't. I've calculated what happens in the 250/10,000/65deg dive for the P-47 and the FW. If they started side by side, this would be the result, as shown below, showing a/c/speed in mph true/distance travelled in line of flight ft/altitude ft

After 5 seconds

190 341/2254/7957
P-47 339/2248/7961

After 8 seconds

190 402.2/3979/6393
P-47 402.23/3973/6398

After 12

190 474.78/6661/3962
P-47 478.62/6671/3953

After 14, 3000ft barrier passed

190 507.5/8148/2615
P-47 513.89/8178/2587

You'll see that the story of the US test is followed, the 190 pulls a slight lead then the Tbolt overtakes, but the distances are tiny compared to my mental picture. OK, you think my math is porked, but think about it, we are talking about 14 seconds here. We only travelled a mile and a half. How much lead do we expect to see? How could it ever be enough to escape from a guy who had firing position on your six?
I did the same test with a Spit Vb with 1185hp, and it finished at 489/7967/2779, that's 211ft behind the Tbolt and 180 behind the FW.

Conclusion, my mental picture is porked. These calcs aren't too far out, and you need longer and/or shallower dives to see a decent range extension/closure. In fact when you extend to 20 or 25 seconds the speed difference between good and bad divers begins to make a real difference, but then you also have a mach problem and the calculation's boundaries are exceeded.
Also, the entry terms here might have been chosen to make the FW look good cf the Tbolt, it can use more power than up high and has less drag when slow than the Jug.
Can anyone who has made devicelink work test this? Just get the speed and alt after 14 seconds, if you can, I want to see if AEP and me are in the same ballpark. Right now I supect (no more than that) that the similar dives we see in the game might not be all that wrong. The problem is that the high speed dive limit is not modelled in a realistic way so we need to stay in the area where performances might really be expected to be similar.

BBB_Hyperion
06-05-2004, 06:10 PM
Here is my first divetest for some planes its a ias vs alt chart
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/divetest.jpg

La7 engine died before thats why it slows down.

Here is the complete data and chart in excel explaining conditions and testing method for this data.
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/Sturzgeschwindigkeiten.zip

Sry didnt have time to translate it to english yet but its pretty obvious.

Here is my program i generated the data with the autolink interface so you can reproduce events as there might be errors cause it was just a one time test.
When you request the planetype in the ini file you get a filename for each planetype tested. Arrangement,output position and topics for polling data can be setup in ini.

www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/il2fbaepdatapoll.zip (http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/il2fbaepdatapoll.zip)

Regards,
Hyperion

k5054
06-09-2004, 04:41 PM
Hyperion,
I looked at your spreadsheets and did some comparing on them. It seems to me that after 30secs in the vertical dive the a/c are gaining speed at 30km/h every second. If that is the IAS at 5000m, then the gain in speed per sec (not exactly the acceleration, but near enough) is at or over 1g, which is not likely at 800kph. Are you sure this is the IAS? Can you get a readout of the true speed?
Unfortunately your program would not run for me, probably some simple problem, but I didn't get any further with it.
For those who haven't seen the sheet, it shows a difference in height of 400m between the fastest and slowest types after 30 seconds of a vertical dive from 10000m, and speed differences which are not very big, 63 km/h IAS covers the lot from P-51, fastest at 806km/h to La-7 at 743km/h

PBNA-Boosher
06-11-2004, 09:44 AM
YA KNOW WHY IT FRIGGIN HAPPENS?

BECAUSE!!! It happened in real life.

Blutarski2004
06-14-2004, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snacky1:
I would like to know why the Mustang falls apart now when trying to turn in a dive at speeds above 750kph. If someone can post evidence that the Mustang had this problem then so be it. I want accurate FMs and by changing dramatically from one patch to another does not halp that matter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Just picked up a book, MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL, by Ron Freeman, which discusses the P51 wing shedding phenomenon. From the gist of this book, I get the impression that the author spent an awful lot of time sifting through 8AF wartime technical reports.

In any case, Freeman states that wing shedding was related to the P51D model in particular. It was determined that the culprit was the re-designed P51D landing gear retraction mechanism, which had been changed from the original P51B/C/D set-up as part of the D wing re-design. After the gear had been retracted, there was insufficient remaining hydraulic pressure in the system to securely engage the gear retaining latches. High speed / high G maneuvering would suck the gear doors out into the slipstream, which would tear them away and compromise the integrity of the wing structure and cause wing failure. The USAF was losing 2-3 a/c a week to this cause until it was finally diagnosed.

BTW, I highly recommend the book.

BLUTARSKI

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2004, 02:08 PM
How long till diagnosed? How long till fixed?
We don't have any models with 'teething problems' that were fixed in time in the sim.
If we did then oooh boy, would there be noise!


Neal

JG5_UnKle
06-14-2004, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In any case, Freeman states that wing shedding was related to the P51D model in particular. It was determined that the culprit was the re-designed P51D landing gear retraction mechanism, which had been changed from the original P51B/C/D set-up as part of the D wing re-design. After the gear had been retracted, there was insufficient remaining hydraulic pressure in the system to securely engage the gear retaining latches. High speed / high G maneuvering would suck the gear doors out into the slipstream, which would tear them away and compromise the integrity of the wing structure and cause wing failure. The USAF was losing 2-3 a/c a week to this cause until it was finally diagnosed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, didn't know that one! Would be cool if the gear dropeed a split second before http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

It isn't just the 51 though, I think most a/c can do it, just it is more pronounced in the 51.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

PzKpfw
06-14-2004, 06:40 PM
Freeman's quote is interesting as we have seen posts here before about P-51D wing failure being related to the LG hatches etc. I cant find any mention of this problem in O'leary's excelent NAA P-51 Mustang: Production Line to Frontline.

Why is their no mention of any problem with the above, in the NAA production line modification records?, or was this field modified & never reported to NAA?.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
06-15-2004, 12:56 AM
I am constant 190s driver and I can only say that I lost my wings often enough in violent manouvers in the region of 680-720.

About the fact that german planes get less Black-outs than american planes, this is a hypothesis I really doubt.

I've been flying the P-51 enough to know it's a plane where rate of survival and success in dogfights is the highest of all others as long as you use your BRAIN and not your arms like in russian planes (which rather suit the aereobatics fanatics..).

What really lacks here in this sim is the force you need to actually pull the stick. Even in Force Feedback sticks this is rather "nice" than actually a force.

If the pilot would actually "feel" the airflow over the plane (by the stick pressure) he would know that pulling the stick to xx% extent would require and ox at the stick and would make the AOA raise to an ridiculous amount which can't be tolerated by planes/materials which were produced in a hurry over sixty years ago.

As for dive advantages. Beofre the arrival of the p-38 in the game and even nowadays I never experienced any problem to seperate from a 109 or 190. Enter a steep dive, go to about 450 kp/h and start to recover into a shallow dive. As long as you're not damaged I see no chance of anyone catching up. So many times I was hunting Mustangs and only because they lost all their fuel did I get the kill.

On the other side I followed a Dora in my stang for minutes. He never got away. He dived, he rolled, he ran on the deck. no chance ! He wouldn't get away.

I don't see any problem in a p47 here. Maybe it climbs to well but that's another issue.

Wingtear at certain speed and G-load however is a feature I really like ! It happens to me it happens to others ! sounds fair !

As for the 109s...Well they may have less chance for wingtear since their elevator is a brick. each time I fly the 109 I want myself back in a 190 or a mustang. More freedom in the elvelator to an extent where you know you can put yourself into a sping is really cool !

S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

Blutarski2004
06-15-2004, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
How long till diagnosed? How long till fixed?
We don't have any models with 'teething problems' that were fixed in time in the sim.
If we did then oooh boy, would there be noise!


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Here is the relevant extract from MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL re P51D wing woes -

QUOTE_
A cange, not for the better, was highlighted by the loss of two Warton test pilots in June 1944 shortly afterthe first D models arrived. Assembled at Speke or Renfrew, the Mustangs were flown to Warton for inspection, modification and checkout. In both fatal test flights a wing had been seen to break off. Examination of the wreckage revealed the cause. To simplify landing gear operation for the pilot, a change had been made. In the P51B and C lowering the landing gear was a two-stage operation, first moving a lever to release the safety up-locks, followedby placing the selector in the down position for the hydraulic system to lower the undercarriage. In the P51D it was only necessary to move the undercarriage selector, the whole operation being hydraulically sequenced and the up-locks releasing automatically. It was discovered that when the selector lever was returned to the neutral position there was insufficient hydraulic pressure in the system to hold the undercarriage fairing doors flush in the wing. At high speed airflow forced open the doors, pushingthe undercarriage out and so over-stressing the wing. Until a modification could be effected to ensure that the up-locks did not release when hydraulic pressure was neutralized, pilots were advised to keep the selector lever in the 'up' position.

Instances of wing and empennage failures occurred throughout the Mustang's operational use, the causes of which were difficult to identify. Reinforcement plates were added externally to both wing and tailplane in the late summer of 1944 after persistent skin wrinkling had been reported on P51D's. At this time Technical Services estimated that Mustang losses through structural failure might ber averaging two per week.
-UNQUOTE


Blutarski editorial comments -
If I'm reading the author correctly, it seems that the landing gear door problem was not the ONLY cause of wing shedding. Interesting.

BLUTARSKI

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2004, 11:19 AM
Estimated 2 per week from June 44 to end of summer 44?
And no count but some failures all during the operational life?

How many sorties was flown I wonder in that time? Perhaps if
it was a very small problem they caught and fixed things slowly
with the gear door catch and fix fast enough to get numbers on,
it would take months to make, ship and fit new parts to the fleet.


Neal

Blutarski2004
06-15-2004, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Estimated 2 per week from June 44 to end of summer 44?
And no count but some failures all during the operational life?

How many sorties was flown I wonder in that time? Perhaps if
it was a very small problem they caught and fixed things slowly
with the gear door catch and fix fast enough to get numbers on,
it would take months to make, ship and fit new parts to the fleet.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... According to this book, P51Ds had just started arriving in NWE in late May 1944, with inventory peaking to approx 1000 in December of that year. Assuming an average strength between June and Dec 44 of 500 x P51Ds and, considering the variable flying weather over that period, an average sortie rate of (wild *** guess here) 1.5 per week, we get about 750 sorties per week. 2 / 750 = 0.27 percent - in other words, about one in three hundred seventy sorties.

BLUTARSKI

BBB_Hyperion
06-16-2004, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Hyperion,
I looked at your spreadsheets and did some comparing on them. It seems to me that after 30secs in the vertical dive the a/c are gaining speed at 30km/h every second. If that is the IAS at 5000m, then the gain in speed per sec (not exactly the acceleration, but near enough) is at or over 1g, which is not likely at 800kph. Are you sure this is the IAS? Can you get a readout of the true speed?
Unfortunately your program would not run for me, probably some simple problem, but I didn't get any further with it.
For those who haven't seen the sheet, it shows a difference in height of 400m between the fastest and slowest types after 30 seconds of a vertical dive from 10000m, and speed differences which are not very big, 63 km/h IAS covers the lot from P-51, fastest at 806km/h to La-7 at 743km/h<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a first time test PT me when you have problems running the program have also a newer version then you can do the tests yourself added now system timer and ingame time. So you can investigate the accelleration process better.

I am quite busy with the top speeds and climbtimes now dive tests come again when through this.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion