Messerschmitt 109 durability

[ACG_Smokejumper]

AFAIK the current damage model increases the durability of the wing if they are made of (Stalin)wood (+20% durability), or they have two spars (+20% durability), the durability increases.

 

Frankly this is somewhat of a WW1 view on things as aircraft structures become quite complex in WW2 as the aircraft skin formed an integral part of it and it wasn’t relyiant on Just the number of spars anymore.

 

Simply to put, the current durability model is greatly unfair to the 109.

 

The actual construction factors that materally contribute to the resilence of the wings, namely that self-bearing structures have a lot of alternate load paths, is ignored, and the whole damage model’s sold preference for wood and multiple spars is essentially singles out the 109 to have far less durable wing structure, which is a false assumption imo and is part of the issue why we see so much more wing bucklings on the 109 when a Soviet guns as much as touch them.

 

 

 

 

 

IF wood is so amazing why does the tail empinage get blown off so easy in 109 G models? The G brought in a wooden tail to reduce critical war material use. They also used steel sheeting.

 

I agree with your posts %100. The 109 has a broken DM and FM. With the removal of trim reset I can see they have gamed the 109.      (I was incorrect) Other fighters still have trim reset. I fly all the aircraft in Cliffs and BoS and I am disappointing with what they have done to the 109. Disappointed enough to recommend against my group leaving Cliffs of Dover for BoS. Not that I have any pull. I'll go where they [Edited] tell me too!

 

I expect it will get better though. They are doing a good job so I really hope this is addressed properly as it is ruining flying 109's for me.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Bearcat

[ACG_Smokejumper]

If an unnamed 'engineer' saying bullet holes in spars and ribs don't cause any damage or weakness is cause for reports for dev's to take time and attention then heaven help us. The revelation that a box section is used (just like every other wing) is also not really news

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

Hi Dak, good post but the unnamed engineer is correct.

 

 

 

A bullet on exit leaves a flange. A flange is a way in any sort of construction to put a hole in a support beam to lighten it without compromising strength. A bullet passing through a spar or rib wouldn't take away structural strength on it's own. It would need a lot of bullets or an explosion of some sort to tear the metal. Once the metal tears, bye bye wing. Flange causing punctures are not bringing any aircraft, building etc etc to come crashing down or break apart.

 

AS you can see in the below image the holes are stamped flanges to lighten the metal with no structural strength loss. That lip you see here is key.... A bullet will do the same.

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Nobody is saying that bullets dont weaken the spars.

 

 

I am.

 

Going to need multiple bullets in a tight grouping or an explosion to cause tearing. A single bullet through a spar in wartime will require an inspection and skin repair.

 

Sorry about the multi posts fellas. Just returned to BoS and the forum I can't seem to figure out editing in a quote so I don't have three spam post.

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Barnacles]

With the removal of trim reset I can see they have gamed the 109

? Surely adding a trim reset would be gamey? Edited December 13, 2017 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[LukeFF]

? Surely adding a trim reset would be gamey?

 

The 109s never have had a trim reset feature. Most other planes in the game do have that feature, yes.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

? Surely adding a trim reset would be gamey?

 

Exactly, I'd like to see it yoinked from my P40.  

 

I edited my post here too Luke to correct my poor memory from when I bought the game ages ago. Thanks for correcting me politely. I will remember that.

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Dakpilot]

Hi Dak, good post but the unnamed engineer is correct.

 

 

 

A bullet on exit leaves a flange. A flange is a way in any sort of construction to put a hole in a support beam to lighten it without compromising strength. A bullet passing through a spar or rib wouldn't take away structural strength on it's own. It would need a lot of bullets or an explosion of some sort to tear the metal. Once the metal tears, bye bye wing. Flange causing punctures are not bringing any aircraft, building etc etc to come crashing down or break apart.

 

AS you can see in the below image the holes are stamped flanges to lighten the metal with no structural strength loss. That lip you see here is key.... A bullet will do the same.

In a perfect world this may be correct theory, but I have a little experience in this, on one occasion I helped repair an aircraft with more than 2 hundred 'impact damage' holes from various calibres, I am no sheet metal worker or engineer but I got to see a lot, most bullets do not hit perfectly perpendicular and punch a nice flanged hole, there is often tumbling and if it hits a rib it will leave a tear, somewhere the angle of impact is not going to be 90 degrees, this applies to all alu skinned aircraft. Willi Messerschmitt was a great engineer and fanatical about lightness, there is a lot of history to back this up.

The 109 wing is light, this is a fact, and one of the reasons it's great performance, but you don't get to build something light without tradeoff, he was clever but no magician, physics still apply, the 109 wing is pretty conventional all things considered.

When holes are made in a structure designed to withstand G forces they get weaker, or they would have had the nice flanged holes put there in the first place if it could be got away with.

 

In short the 109 wing is light by design and intention, closer to limits and will suffer accordingly you can't change physics.

 

It was joked by Lufrwaffe that when a Messerschmitt crashed Willi would see which parts survived and make them lighter, when a Focke Wulf crashed Kurt Tank would see what parts broke and make them stronger. This was Messerschmitt's design philosophy, easily traced from his earliest models.

 

Sorry for long post, (and I fear I have not made my point very coherently I went on to fly the repaired A/C for many hours, but a similar one with holes in the main spar was scrapped, even with an approved repair it was not considered worth the risk

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

P.S to all

 

I am a great fan of 109's and admirer of Messerschmitt designs, but let's not try to elevate them into what they weren't

[Hutzlipuh]

I am a great fan of 109's and admirer of Messerschmitt designs, but let's not try to elevate them into what they weren't

 

And lets not try to make it weaker then it was , shouldnt we?

 

Me 109 : 10.5 G

Fw 190 : 11 G

 

YAK 1 : 10.3 G

La 5 : 10 G

 

Theres no question which was structurally stronger if you look at those numbers...

 

If a design uses 2 or more spars its because the designer couldnt make the wing strong enough with 1 spar using the wanted material ...

found some pictures of a yak in restoration...nice photos showing the wing (multiple pages) :

 

http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk/_images/_completed/yak1/yak1wing5.html

[Kurfurst]

Next it would be nice if Kurfürst could tell me about a report to the devs (pm if you want)

 

I did contact some of them on this matter, but I am not sure if there is a 'proper' fashion to do it. I am not sure if they read the FM section with any regularity. I will send you a PM to discuss it without breaking the flow of the discussion.

[Brano]

Andrey Petrovich doesnt have time to engage in discussions with every wannabe FM/DM expert on this forum. If someone has smtg quantifiable,contac him directly.

[Dakpilot]

And lets not try to make it weaker then it was , shouldnt we?

 

Me 109 : 10.5 G

Fw 190 : 11 G

 

YAK 1 : 10.3 G

La 5 : 10 G

 

Theres no question which was structurally stronger if you look at those numbers...

 

If a design uses 2 or more spars its because the designer couldnt make the wing strong enough with 1 spar using the wanted material ...

found some pictures of a yak in restoration...nice photos showing the wing (multiple pages) :

 

http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk/_images/_completed/yak1/yak1wing5.html

Yes I am familiar with the Yak wing restoration pics,

 

But you are missing the point, 0.2G is not massively different but the weights are

 

The very good performance of Bf 109 has a lot to do with its lightweight construction

 

 

Physics says there has to be a tradeoff, it is not made of unicorn dust or any revolutionary design elements when compared to other wings, be they aluminium or composite delta wood

 

Lighter construction = less durability, there are no free lunches

 

Willi Messerschmitt was a genius but he was not a magician

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Kurfurst]

If weight (or the number of spars used in the construction, irrespective of other details) would be the sign of anything alone, then Boris the Blade would be a genius and you could shoot .44 Magnums from Colt Walkers just because they weight around 5 pounds.

 

I mean its fine as common wisdom and all but it simply an oversimplification of very complex aircraft structures and solutions.

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Good Laag fighter can make up to 8 kills in one sortie, those 23mm are very effective and precise.

[Blutaar]

And lets not try to make it weaker then it was , shouldnt we?

 

Me 109 : 10.5 G

Fw 190 : 11 G

 

YAK 1 : 10.3 G

La 5 : 10 G

 

What are these figures good for? At lower speed were elevater athority is high enough we get a wingstall at much lower Gs. At high speed we dont have enough muscels to pull hard enough for really high Gs. Or is that only relevant for landing or crashing? If it is just the theoretical maximum, whats the reason for putting that into a manual if you never ever can pull such Gs? Im just asking out of curiosity.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

There is no way to "quantify" the bullet resistance of wings.

I think the main point is that the implemented 20% more durability on Russian wings is not supported by the evidence in any way.

- German wings can take higher G loadings and thus are structurally probably tougher than the 2 spars of the Russian wings.

- The report shows that the single spar is not inferior in terms of taking damage by bullets.

These are the documented facts. The conclusion can only be that the wings should at least have the same durability. 20% more durability of Russian wings is is not supported by any evidence. The weight durability argument is weak to say the least.

This should be the argument when sending the report - simply "no evidence in support of 20% more durability"

Edited December 13, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Barnacles]

There is no way to "quantify" the bullet resistance of wings.

I think the main point is that the implemented 20% more durability on Russian wings is not supported by the evidence in any way.

- German wings can take higher G loadings and thus are structurally probably tougher than the 2 spars of the Russian wings.

- The report shows that the single spar is not inferior in terms of taking damage by bullets.

These are the documented facts. The conclusion can only be that the wings should at least have the same durability. 20% more durability of Russian wings is is not supported by any evidence. The weight durability argument is weak to say the least.

This should be the argument when sending the report - simply "no evidence in support of 20% more durability"

I agree with the "no evidence to support" statement but I don't think max g load can be used to justify it. F=ma so even if the g loading limit is lower a wing could easily be 'stronger' depending on the masses involved. S!

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

You are right, but I was assuming both planes have approximately the same weight (2300kg) so the argument is valid as far as I can tell.

Slightly higher weight of the yak 1 offsets the slightly higher g loading of the 109 in terms of durability.

So this does support the argument of equal durability IMO

 

I agree with the "no evidence to support" statement but I don't think max g load can be used to justify it. F=ma so even if the g loading limit is lower a wing could easily be 'stronger' depending on the masses involved. S!

Edited December 13, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Dakpilot]

The whole premise of this demand is wrong, (apart from none of the "documents" proving anything other than an opinion )

 

The dev's stated that the safety factor was different. If a Russian and German wing were both designed for a six G application the Russian one would be heavier and more durable due to higher safety factors aplied during design phase

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

The whole premise of this demand is wrong, (apart from none of the "documents" proving anything other than an opinion ) The dev's stated that the safety factor was different. If a Russian and German wing were both designed for a six G application the Russian one would be heavier and more durable due to higher safety factors aplied during design phase Cheers, Dakpilot

Thanks, can you link please?

 

 

(apart from none of the "documents" proving anything other than an opinion )

An opinion from someone who actually looked at some actual battle damage of the wings none the less. "so anything other than an opinion", is a pretty bold statement coming from someone who bases his opinions from impressions he gets from sitting in front of a computer shooting simulated planes... no hard feelings mate

Edited December 13, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Dakpilot]

I don't have a link, but pretty sure (maybe) it was in the questions for dev's section

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Barnacles]

You are right, but I was assuming both planes have approximately the same weight (2300kg) so the argument is valid as far as I can tell.

Slightly higher weight of the yak 1 offsets the slightly higher g loading of the 109 in terms of durability.

So this does support the argument of equal durability IMO

 

 

Yes indeed. There is also a factor of the length of the wing but they are approximately equal too.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Hutzlipuh, on 16 Mar 2017 - 20:58, said:

    Hi Han,

    

    can you please elaborate what exactly you mean with "required margin of durability"? i cant undestand that term , probably a translation problem.

 

Han´s reply

In simple words - army requires that plane wing should keep 5000kg load.

To guarantie this engeneer should design wing with margin.

If wing is metal - it should keep 5000 x 1.4 = 7000 kg of load

Id wing is wooden - it should keep 5000 x 2.0 = 10000 kg of load.

Wooden parts have less stability of parameters from copy to copy and have less stability of parameters in time - this why wooden parts have more margin.

 

This only tells me that they need a higher margin of error to achieve the same level of safety as with metal. Why would you increase weight for any other reason?

Edited December 13, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Dakpilot]

Perhaps it would have been better for the OP to have posted the Actual dev quote that inspired this thread..?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[unreasonable]

Hutzlipuh, on 16 Mar 2017 - 20:58, said:

    Hi Han,

    

    can you please elaborate what exactly you mean with "required margin of durability"? i cant undestand that term , probably a translation problem.

 

Han´s reply

In simple words - army requires that plane wing should keep 5000kg load.

To guarantie this engeneer should design wing with margin.

If wing is metal - it should keep 5000 x 1.4 = 7000 kg of load

Id wing is wooden - it should keep 5000 x 2.0 = 10000 kg of load.

Wooden parts have less stability of parameters from copy to copy and have less stability of parameters in time - this why wooden parts have more margin.

 

This only tells me that they need a higher margin of error to achieve the same level of safety as with metal. Why would you increase weight for any other reason?

 

As I read it it says that they need a higher margin of error to achieve the same level of safety for the weakest member of the more variable set . If you have to have that extra margin for the weakest members, the average or stronger ones then have a larger margin, which is not strictly needed, and adds weight, but since you do not know in advance which members of the set will be the weakest, you have to do it for all of them.

 

Not a comment on the factual accuracy of Han's formulation BTW, I am in no position to judge, but what he said makes perfect logical sense.

[RAY-EU]

Is obvuselly if you take a hammer the wood is the part that allways brokes .

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by RAY-EU

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

safety for the weakest member of the more variable set

 

that´s your interpretation. That argument has come to my mind too. But you don´t know the distribution of strengths or the intention of the rule (i.e. weakest has to be stronger than metal... maybe they were aiming for a quantile... who knows!)

Edited December 13, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[ACG_Smokejumper]

I am a great fan of 109's and admirer of Messerschmitt designs, but let's not try to elevate them into what they weren't

 

 

Thank you and great post. I see your post and can't fault your experience or logic in how you related that to me. A tumbled bullet WOULD tear the metal.

 

Okay so she's a little fragile.  

I still wonder at it being too fragile or wooden wings too tough.

 

I do think that her lightness should have this bird be more nimble than she is now. That's another thread though.

And lets not try to make it weaker then it was , shouldnt we?

 

Me 109 : 10.5 G

Fw 190 : 11 G

 

YAK 1 : 10.3 G

La 5 : 10 G

 

Theres no question which was structurally stronger if you look at those numbers...

 

If a design uses 2 or more spars its because the designer couldnt make the wing strong enough with 1 spar using the wanted material ...

found some pictures of a yak in restoration...nice photos showing the wing (multiple pages) :

 

http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk/_images/_completed/yak1/yak1wing5.html

 

 

Can you ever see the simplicity in design here. That's not a compliment either.

 

I see a boxed lattice beam..... This looks like carpentry. I'm confused as how this is stronger than the advanced 109 design and considering the amount of wood used should we be seeing more incendiary damage? Given that a 109 wing is rated for more G by this post and then looking at the actual construction........ I have doubts. I'm sure the 109 was a bit fragile as I agree with some of what Dak says too but perhaps a bit of beefing up OR reduce the Russian wing strength.

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Lighter construction = less durability, there are no free lunches

 

Willi Messerschmitt was a genius but he was not a magician

 

 

 

 

Wood = fire. A little piece of a phosphor shell inside that wing would light it up wouldn't it? I know aluminium burns but not as readily as wood does.

 

 

As for weight questions, I'm a mining scaffolder who has worked from outback Australia to the Canadian Arctic mining diamonds. Weight doesn't necessarily mean strong. In Oz we use steel tubing to build scaffold and in Canada aluminium. The construction is the same but their weight is clearly different. The aluminum scaffold is rated to carry the same weight as a steel build with the same spans between standards while being a fraction of the weight.

 

I can also build a wooden scaffold and that will be heavy as all heck with a much REDUCED LOAD BEARING rating. My spans will be shorter between verticle standards as well. Wood is heavy and durable while aluminium is light with a higher tensile strength than steel.

 

This isn't my opinion. This is the engineers telling me how I have to build. If I build with wood I have to overbuild it more than steel or aluminium. If I build it to the same specs as metal construction and someone dies on it I go to jail. Weight doesn't mean strong. This isn't opinion this is industry practice based on research, experience and sadly blood.

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Dakpilot]

Russian delta wood

 

"

Delta Drevesina-- this was a wood-plastic material used for heavy constructional elements, usually wing spars and such like. It consisted of carefully selected sections of spruce impregnated with a complex phenol-formaldehyde resin (thought to be Novolac type, but recipe unknown). The units were cured under pressure in a special kiln, of which there is no known surviving example.

 

Shpon-- was a sheeting material used for skinning aircraft, and of such strength that the resulting structures were usually of monocoque design. Shpon was made by laying cross-grained veneers of birch strip impregnated with resin (composition again unknown) over a thin sheet of Bakelite on one or both sides. The laminate was then cured under heat and pressure (the top half of one such 'press' existed for years in Ufa, but no complete unit is known). This process could be repeated for greater thickness, if desired.

 

All of these timber products would subsequently be covered by resin-impregnated strips of fabric on the aircraft. This outer covering acted quite a bit like fibreglass, as one might imagine. All of the resins used were noted for their flame resistant properties, and one may hold a match or candle under any of these materials and they will not 'burn' (in the usual sense-- they char and blacken)."

 

Not exactly sure how accurate but gives a bit more insight

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Hutzlipuh]

Russian delta wood

... The units were cured under pressure in a special kiln, of which there is no known surviving example.

 Shpon was made by laying cross-grained veneers of birch strip impregnated with resin (composition again unknown) over a thin sheet of Bakelite on one or both sides. The laminate was then cured under heat and pressure (the top half of one such 'press' existed for years in Ufa, but no complete unit is known).

 

 

How convenient... no kiln left to reproduce , resin composition unknown , no complete press left..... sounds like fairy dust material to me...

Also it is known that "DELTAwood" would shatter under explosive pressure (HEI-M Mineshell springs to mind )

Edited December 14, 2017 by Hutzlipuh

[Dakpilot]

Han

 

"Same here with your questions.

 

Russian planes have wooden airframe, wooden airframe have 2.0 reqired margin of durability. While metall airframe have 1.4 margin of durability. Plus Bf 109 have 1 longeron wing while La-5 and Yak-1 have 2 longeron wing. AND THIS why german planes supreme in flight characteristics - they're LIGHTER while engine have same or close power.

 

You want to force us to make unrealistic ballanced simulation? No, we will not."

 

Han never said that 109 was weaker due to single spar, only that it was lighter than Russian aircraft

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Kurfurst]

Han never said that 109 was weaker due to single spar, only that it was lighter than Russian aircraft

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

He did, actually. Post no. 31., in https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12826-game-updates/

 

 Update 2.010

 

10. German 20 mm shell fragments have a higher initial speed because of their higher explosive mass to total mass ratio so they cause more damage;

11. Bf 109, Fw 190 and some other planes durability is fixed (it was undeliberately lowered because of the many earlier changes in these aircraft). Now twin longeron Soviet fighters with delta-wood wings are roughly 20% more durable than Bf 109 fighters which have single longeron wings, while Fw 190s with triple longeron wings are roughly 20% more durable than Soviet fighters. P-40 is even more durable thanks to its five longeron wings. Pe-2 and Bf 110 planes are roughly twice more durable than Soviet fighters while IL-2 fits somewhere in between Pe-2 and LaGG in terms of combat durability;

[JG1_Shadepiece]

Then can you explain what the margin of durability means. I'm not quite grasping what Han means there.

 

Also, how would the Dealtawood hold up against AP, HE, or incendiary damage better when compared to metal?

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

Plus Bf 109 have 1 longeron wing while La-5 and Yak-1 have 2 longeron wing. AND THIS why german planes supreme in flight climb characteristics - they're LIGHTER while engine have same or close power.

 

There I fixed it b7c i have yet to see these supreme flight characteristics...

[Dakpilot]

If you take all of Han's posts into consideration it is simply saying that due to much lighter construction 109 wing is less durable than Yak/Lagg wing just as it is less durable than 190 and P-40.

 

Lightweight construction of 109 wing is well known and documented, the need to strengthen wing construction with introduction of F model after wing failures, skin wrinkles and other internal failures led to delays in introduction, strengthening on later serial production F2-F4 cured this. I think the wing materials were again strengthened with G series?

 

As far as I know Lagg-3 basic wing construction was not changed with L-5 until introducing new metal spar with mid 1944 series La-5fn.

 

I just don't see the implausibility Fw 190 is accepted as stronger/more durable than 109, I think the debate should be about strength of Russian aircraft rather than weak 109, but that is a rather different debate

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

I believe Margin of durability is supposed to be the safety factor. ie if the max stress for your material before it breaks is xyz then you build your part so that the stress resulting from whatever loads you are designing for is less than the break stress by the safety factor. Ie S= Break stress/Actual stress.

 

I understood Hans comments to mean that since there is more variation of when the wooden construction breaks when compared with the theoretical break stress for that material, they went for a larger safety factor. The metal used in the 109 as well as the way it was constructed was apparently more predictable (does what the math says it does with less variation) so it was acceptable to use a lower safety factor.

Edited December 14, 2017 by 9./JG27DefaultFace

[Holtzauge]

Now that the developers motivations to why the Russian wooden winged planes are more damage tolerant in-game have been posted I have to say I understand why they have modelled the Me-109 weaker: Since I happen to be an aeronautical engineer with structural engineering as one of my majors, I understand and sympathize with their reasoning: I’ve done structural engineer on composites myself and I’m familiar with the concept that composites have a larger variance than metals so you would typically have a larger safety factor meaning you would be forced to slightly overdimension the design in order to make allowance for the outliers. Now how bad this gets will be dependent on how much of a safety factor you build in, do you go for the worst quarter, 10 of 5 percentile in the set? In addition, you have the age and weathering effects to take into account so this would add even more of a safety factor. To sum up the engineer doing the design will be left with a fraction of the mean strength of an average sample when doing the actual structural engineering. What all this adds up to is that in general, the average wooden winged plane flying out there will be much stronger than needed meaning it should be able to absorb more battle damage. However, I’ll pass on the actual percentage of how much more damage tolerant the Russian wooded winged fighters should be than the Me-109 but IMHO there in no question that developers have strong case for the current state of affairs in that the Me-109 is relatively weaker in-game.

 

However, that being said, I do agree that there currently is an in-game German/Russian DM problem since in general you do have a tougher time shooting down Russian planes when flying German but that IMHO is due to the modeling of the German Mingeschoss which is a totally different issue.

[Brano]

Well written Holz.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

I would think that there is a difference as to tolerance against flight loads and tolerance against damage. Not just the safety factor is important, but how you redistribute loads when bits start flying off.

 

Also I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that material variation is not simulated in Il2. Which means that you never have the worst case materials for which the higher safety factors were implemented.

[Holtzauge]

I would think that there is a difference as to tolerance against flight loads and tolerance against damage. Not just the safety factor is important, but how you redistribute loads when bits start flying off.

 

Also I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that material variation is not simulated in Il2. Which means that you never have the worst case materials for which the higher safety factors were implemented.

 

Well they don’t need to model the material variation: Obviously there has to be some sort of score system in-game since you don’t model every individual stringer, rib or spar but the point is you would set the score needed to sever the wing higher if the wing incorporates a higher safety margin. Sure, material variation means IRL you could be stuck with a lemon and lose a wing early but the point is that the AVERAGE sample will be significantly stronger since the dimensioning was done having a "semi-lemon" in mind.

 

When it comes to bits actually flying off as you say then I don’t see a significant difference: Both the Me-109 and say La-5 have alternative loadpaths in most cases meaning the wing won’t fail catastrophically in most cases but you better ease off on the g’s if you don’t want to lose a wing.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Holtzauge