LW VS VVS PLANES at 4.10

[Ernst]

Yes, Mustang. The allies won the war. They have to win in IL2 too, always. Spitfire is the perfect project, no compromisses.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Yes, Mustang. The allies won the war. They have to win in IL2 too, always. Spitfire is the perfect project, no compromisses.

Originally Posted by Ernst

The Focke Wulf broke at -3.8G~-4.0G. I could not anchieve more than -2.0G in the spitfire, maybe if i trim the spitifire negative i ll. I ll try later. In principle appears to me that spitfire has much better G endurance in 4.10. Why? Ask TD.

You just said that the Spitfire could pull fewer negative Gs. This probably has a lot to do with lower average speed and the nose-up trim tendency of the Spitfire. What has that got to do with G endurance? If you could get the Spit to pull 3-4 negative Gs it would break as well. All it means is that an FW-190 can escape more easily in a bunt as long as the pilot is careful. That make sense?

[Ernst]

Ok. But how about the positive g's? Check the messages before this one. However i do not tried to trim the Spitfire to verify if it can go to more negative G's yet. Appears it had some positive trim on take off/start.

[TheGrunch]

Dunno, didn't read that far back, haha. Does sound odd, but it doesn't mean it is wrong in principle. I don't know what either aircraft was stressed to achieve off the top of my head.

[TheGrunch]

Have a read through this, Ernst. EDIT: In fact you posted in that thread, you've probably read it all already.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Have a read through this, Ernst. EDIT: In fact you posted in that thread, you've probably read it all already.

Yes. But with no data then in principle Focke Wulf and Spitfire must resist the same G loading. Here we have a ~1.3G difference. I can guess the answer: The TD stated that the g loading do not reflect the particularities of each aircraft, except weight. Since Focke Wulf is heavier maybe in the TD code it must to resist less.

However maybe in real life it was more well built, exactly because it was heavier. And in part maybe its heaviness is exactly because this allowed the 190 to carry more weight and resist the g-forces yet. Since the TD could not consider the differences in construction of the aircraft it uses a simple matter of weight that not defines well the problem. However since they are incapable to simulate the construction particularities the heavier aircrafts has serious disadvantages.

However if this is true the 109 must endure better in the TD code, since it was lighter than spitfire. I do not tested the 109 yet. But if we test it and verify it is worse tha Spit, then there is something very odd.

[rakinroll]

Actually, i really love that exploded deflection shots while "ubers" trying to classic turn baby turn style high G flight. Thanks TD...

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by ernst

yes. But with no data then in principle focke wulf and spitfire must resist the same g loading. Here we have a ~1.3g difference. I can guess the answer: The td stated that the g loading do not reflect the particularities of each aircraft, except weight. Since focke wulf is heavier maybe in the td code it must to resist less.

However maybe in real life it was more well built, exactly because it was heavier. And in part maybe its heaviness is exactly because this allowed the 190 to carry more weight and resist the g-forces yet. Since the td could not consider the differences in construction of the aircraft it uses a simple matter of weight that not defines well the problem. However since they are incapable to simulate the construction particularities the heavier aircrafts has serious disadvantages.

However if this is true the 109 must endure better in the td code, since it was lighter than spitfire. I do not tested the 109 yet. But if we test it and verify it is worse tha spit, then there is something very odd.

I make some researchs:

http://il2.mega.kg/forum/index.php?showtopic=840

About FW 190

Во-вторых, конструкция FW190 была гораздо более прочной, чем у его конкурента: коэффициент запаса прочности, заложенный в конструкцию планера, был 1.2 против 1.02 у Bf109. Это позволяло самолету безболезненно переносить гораздо более серьезные боевые повреждения, чем Bf109. Немаловажным фактором в обеспечении живучести, а также увеличения угловой скорости входа в вираж, было расположение всех топливных баков исключительно в фюзеляже, что, с одной стороны, уменьшало их поражаемую площадь, а с другой, снижало момент инерции самолета при маневрах по крену.

прочность конструкции самолета иллюстрирует следующий эпизод: в период переподготовки с мессершмитта-109 на фокке-вульф, опытный летчик, ранее летавший в авиакомпании "люфтганза", проявил необъяснимое мальчишество и решил поднять самолет на практический потолок. в результате самолет свалился в вертикальное пикирование с большой высоты с мотором, работающим на полную мощность. скорость быстро приблизилась к критической отметке - более 800 км/ч. приложив все свои силы, летчик сумел выдернуть истребитель из пике и перейти в горизонтальный полет. после возвращения на аэродром самолет оказался в полной исправности: ни деформаций силовых элементов или панелей обшивки, ни выпавших заклепок!


Translated:

In the second place, construction FW190 was much more durable, than in its competitor: the safety factor, placed in the construction of glider, was 1.2 against 1.02 in Bf109. This made possible for aircraft to painlessly transfer much more serious battle damages than Bf109. Important factor in the guarantee of vitality, and also increase in the angular entry speed into the turn, was the arrangement of all fuel tanks exclusively in the fuselage, which, from one side, decreased their beaten area, and with another, was reduced the moment of the inertia of aircraft while maneuverings along the bank.


The structural strength of aircraft illustrates the following episode: in the period of retraining from the Messerschmitt -109 to the Focke-Wulfe, experienced pilot, previously flown in the airline " [Lyuftganza]" , appeared inexplicable boyishness and decided to raise aircraft to the service ceiling. As a result aircraft fell down into the vertical dive from a high altitude with the motor, which works at full power. Speed rapidly approached the critical mark - more than 800 km/h. After exerting all his forces, pilot knew how to pull out fighter from peak and to pass into the level flight.
After return to the airfield the aircraft proved to be in complete proper working order: neither deformations of load-bearing elements or panels of skin nor fallen rivets!

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Dunno, didn't read that far back, haha. Does sound odd, but it doesn't mean it is wrong in principle. I don't know what either aircraft was stressed to achieve off the top of my head.

I just tried the negative g's because Kwiatek asked me for. Certainly he asked because he wanted that i observe something myself. But he do not come back to explain what.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Ok. But how about the positive g's? Check the messages before this one. However i do not tried to trim the Spitfire to verify if it can go to more negative G's yet. Appears it had some positive trim on take off/start.

Despite appearances otherwise the Spitfire is actually a very strong aircraft. I'm not an expert on G tolerances but I have read combat reports and several Spitfires were able to dive to incredible speeds and pull out at the last moment - usually with a warped airframe and had to be scrapped later. Anecdotal but the Spitfire wasn't weak... I'm not sure how it compares to the FW190.

Which FW190 model was it? A-5? What about the D-9?