Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If the situation remains as it is now, then the game will lose many of the players who are still playing.  Moreover, in the midst of virtual pilots, there will be persistent rumors that it is not worth buying a circus.  All this will make the development of the online sector difficult, if not kill him at all.  Even now, the number of players (in my opinion in the European prime time) has decreased by about half

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

 Thanks Talbot, that was... uhh... quite an interesting read.:blink:

 

 I recall some of that stuff from my very first book on rough carpentry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

The thing is, what's happening does not resonate with anything I've read of WW1 air fighting. AND it is not fun to play. I'm thinking there's more than a coincidence in this.

I agree that it doesn't seem to chime with what we've all read.  My point is that we should seek to change it because of that, not because it's not fun.  If we start tweaking the FMs and DMs to make things more fun rather than to attempt to replicate what actually happened, then we'd better all go play Warthunder.

 

Like I said, I don't think this DM is representative of RL, but changing it because it's not fun is not  the right way to go (for Flying Circus) IMO.  If it turns out that wings folded after a few hits IRL, then either we accept that  and adapt the way we play, or realise that a reasonably high fidelity WW1 CFS was never going to be any fun.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" If it turns out that wings folded after a few hits IRL, then either we accept that  and adapt the way we play, or realise that a reasonably high fidelity WW1 CFS was never going to be any fun"

 

I doubt that IRL after 3 hits the wings came off at 1.3Gs.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Adam said:

I doubt that IRL after 3 hits the wings came off at 1.3Gs.

 

Very often anyways.

 

I'm going to laugh my ass off if the fix ends up being greater bullet dispersion.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/12/2020 at 11:23 PM, ZachariasX said:
Spoiler

 

Ok, here's why we see absolutely flawed behaviour in WW1 crate DM:

 

See here, I'm aiming at a meaningless part of the aircraft that consists of two layers of doped canvas and air. In the real world, I can fire at this part one milliontrilliongazillion times and the aircraft will only receive cosmetic damage:

wing1.jpg.febf5ee91e028a520ef7b4d57cb88d5c.jpg

 

Yet, when I fire about one and a half drums of my single Lewis, then

wing2.jpg.5dba79f29aab9ea8e43f2a5ceca84af3.jpg

pooofff... and there I go. The in-game wing loses progressively static strenght with every shot that I fire at that meaningless part until it loses strenghts such that it cannot carry the aircraft anymore and it folds.

 

Now, guess hat happens when I aim at critical parts?

wing3.jpg.2293687777d727ca626b995b5b864f1c.jpg

 

I am aiming now at the front lower spar, near the joint of where the struts and support wires attach. It is also near where contol cables are. So then, dakkadakkadakka and...

wing4.jpg.0237f826143e6e44f1f2ebd2e25fc658.jpg

... you see the wing spar apprear under the damaged canvas. (it is ok that it just has one way of depicting damage visually.) This means I'm aiming at the right part. Mo' dakkadakkadakka...

 

wing5.jpg.c740ffb4558e46b16f60c75f083ee378.jpg

...and after about as many hits as in the first example, the whole wing collapses in the same way.

 

This means that the wing is essentially one single hitbox accumulating damage. With this you NEVER depict damage in a way such a structure would collapse. It  is ok for cantilever aircraft, especially stressed skin ones. But if all you have is a skeleton box of spars and struts, statically fixed by redundant wiring, then the whole concept does simply not apply.

 

The New DM is great, it is just applied in a wrong way for FC and the game suffers greatly from it.

 

Hitboxes that apply for static strenght of the lower with would more look like that:

wing6.jpg.55b0c54cc2c4092a3e9048ce4b02195c.jpg

 

Ribs could be added but less needed as they are very redundant, but you have to think of the whole arrangement as a box created by the spars, struts and support wires.

 

As long as there is only one hitbox per wing, the whole thing is futile.

 

 

 

 

 Yes I agree with this.

 

  I do know the damage model does not calculate the impact of skin covering in regard to the load bearing structure well (or at all?), and not all internal structures are modeled on all planes.Also skin damage has more impacts on ww2 planes than ww1, unless you get hit by a flak shell because its only small MG hits, not cannons.

 

Visual damage is mainly for looks and does not reflect actual damage with accuracy to particular parts (as seen in pics above), this will be a performance thing (only so much you can do in real time , and not have game grind to a stuttering unplayable mess)

I also know from the Video Jason produced on you tube just before this update 4.005 its very much a work in progress DM Video Link

 

RNG may be the only way for that to work on wing hits for example , if internals are not modeled. How many hit boxes make up the wing ,and how is it visually related to damage, unknown?

 

What i have not yet seen in FC is a spar being shot or wires lost (visuals) in flight. I don't think its been modeled in FC yet as a hitbox (or will be, I do hope so).

From those pics it does seem its much less refined and a generic hitbox.

 

I'd love to experience the tension of a lucky hit damaging a spar or wire, that would be a nice bit of immersion, without the whole wing collapsing (and they were a separate hitbox would be nice)

 

Personally I don't care if DM is not 100% accurate, as long as its somewhat believable/plausible and fun, I don't think its ever going to be close to 100%, thats a lovely dream but not very realistic IMHO. My current opinion  its not yet there for ww1 planes, as small MG caliber holes in non vitals do not cause wing failures, at most aerodynamic impacts.

 

Quotes from Jason in "Game version 4.005 discussion" thread.
 

On 4/16/2020 at 7:42 AM, Jason_Williams said:

 

Sorry, not possible. Not all planes have internal structure. No resources to build structure in all planes and all surfaces.

 

Jason

Quote

 

 

On 4/16/2020 at 7:19 AM, chuter said:

Well, that answers my question.  Why anyone would choose anything less than the 88 HE is beyond me.

 

Side note:  As a decades long aircraft structures mechanic it really should be pointed out that the aircraft skin isn't just a covering for the load bearing structure but an integral part of that load bearing structure, much like a spar web.  However, I do understand the significant difficulty of attempting to produce a damage model for a complex semi-monocoque structure.

 

Not difficult, impossible.

 

 

Links:

and

 

 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
updated for clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken from the 2013 RoF forum;

 

“THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL February, 1921

PROCEEDINGS, FIFTH MEETING, 57th SESSION, Major F. M. Green delivered the following lecture

DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIGHTING AEROPLANE.

Ability to Withstand Damage.

The structure of the aeroplane itself is a large target in comparison with the pilot and the vital parts of the engine. It will be a big advantage if the aeroplane is so designed that it is likely to lose little of its structural strength when hit by the bullets of the enemy. Wooden spars are generally of such a section that many bullet holes are unlikely to cause sufficient damage to make failure in the air likely. There is always the possibility that a wire or the attachment of a wire will be shot away, and it certainly seems a requirement of the modern aeroplane that the structure of the aeroplane should not depend upon any single wire or attachment. Duplicating a wire by means of another wire alongside is apt to be dangerous as one bullet is likely to destroy both wires. The lecturer knows of one case in which an aeroplane partly collapsed when a bullet hit the point of attachment of two wires which left the plane at different angles. The ideal arrangement, therefore, is to make a structure which is braced by two or more independent systems." 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yep. I do know the Dr1 did not have wing cross wires which made it more durable and improved drag.

Fokker DR1 at Airpower11 18.jpg

 

WW2 planes had the issue around wing damage and new DM has made them more durable, but not ww1 planes.

In his video he even mentions this about ww2 planes.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Adam said:

" If it turns out that wings folded after a few hits IRL, then either we accept that  and adapt the way we play, or realise that a reasonably high fidelity WW1 CFS was never going to be any fun"

 

I doubt that IRL after 3 hits the wings came off at 1.3Gs.

 

Everyone here always talks about the times this happens, but come on, I see planes fly around with wings shredded and full of holes and still intact.

 

The times when wings go after 3 hits are comparatively rare. The question is should they happen at all? My take is, very occasionally, probably yes.

 

But making out that this is the current norm for the sim is just wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

What i have not yet seen in FC is a spar being shot or wires lost (visuals) in flight. I don't think its been modeled in FC yet as a hitbox (or will be, I do hope so).

From those pics it does seem its much less refined and a generic hitbox.

 

 

I've seen wires lost on the Albatros and had a strut detached from part of the wing on a Pfalz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to be a case of CPU power vs realistic implementation of breakable components. AnPetrovich has mentioned this as being the main obstacle but I'd be interested to hear greater detail, as in an example of what a good CPU (let's say an 8500k running at 4.5ghz with all other components being in the same performance class, RAM and GPU etc) can do with 16 planes all having the existing hitboxes PLUS full spar hitboxes. Would this reduce the game to a stutter-fest?

If not then it goes back to the old debate of PC cost vs game demands/performance. Most studios don't like the idea of excluding players with low to mid-range PCs, for obvious reasons. I see no way around this, unless it was possible to implement two versions of the game, one for high-end PCs and another for low/mid-range. Otherwise, bite the bullet and up the minimum requirements.

We're in the dark though, we have no idea what a good CPU can handle in terms of hitbox count and complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

Everyone here always talks about the times this happens, but come on, I see planes fly around with wings shredded and full of holes and still intact.

 

The times when wings go after 3 hits are comparatively rare. The question is should they happen at all? My take is, very occasionally, probably yes.

 

But making out that this is the current norm for the sim is just wrong.

 

You probably weren't in the last Bloody April session. Even cats and dogs were raining with no wings. If it were very occasional, do you think people would be fed up to the point of going to play something else? I want to throw my money at FC2, not WOFF.

Edited by J2_Bidu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, nickj123 said:

 

I've seen wires lost on the Albatros and had a strut detached from part of the wing on a Pfalz.

 This is the crux of the matter. We know a real-life wing with a broken spar can hold on even with high Gs if the wires are intact, as the load of an otherwise unattached piece of wing can be borne via the wires (and struts) to intact wings (and/or fuselage). I'm assuming this isn't modelled in other than an abstract way (if even that). The game sees a broken spar and treats the affected wing largely in isolation?

Edited by J3Hetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These wings look strong enough 🙂

IMG_7885.thumb.JPG.82ee598d7ccae3f54580658ab3d17493.JPG

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Not sure I agree with this.  In the (unlikely) event that this DM turns out to be an accurate reflection of real life, then I, for one, will be happy to carry on playing, and to adapt to it.  Once we start saying that game play is more important than trying to portray how things actually were,  then we're moving out of sim territory.


the curious thing is that UNDAMAGED wings are now folding more easily too. It appears that speed is a factor after a certain point. I’ve managed to shed the SE5 wings in LEVEL FLIGHT in a quick snap roll. It’s safe under 100mph but gets dicey above that point. Likewise, the pull up out of a fast dive now has to be as gentle as ROF making an aggressive zoom angle much harder. This was something I loved about the DM when FC first launched. It adversely affects the Spad and SE5 with the higher speed BnZ attacks, though I’ve seen it happen with the odd diving Albi.

 

some home testing is showing that 10-15kph difference can mean wing sheds at 2g or less vs 6g at a slightly lower speed. Would 10kph make that much difference to a wing load? Is speed a calculated factor in the DM or just Gs?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

I'm going to laugh my ass off if the fix ends up being greater bullet dispersion.

Surely many have already thought about this, but you were the first to say ;-))))

2 hours ago, kendo said:

 

But making out that this is the current norm for the sim is just wrong.

 

Without a doubt !!

 

IMG_7896.thumb.PNG.74d84e5dac7a8cc044b1a11cdd160142.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, kendo said:

 

The times when wings go after 3 hits are comparatively rare. The question is should they happen at all? My take is, very occasionally, probably yes.

 

But making out that this is the current norm for the sim is just wrong.

 

'Fraid I have to disagree with this.  I can't really comment for the online guys here as my online time is spent in WW2.  However, I can generate an exciting, action-packed single mission with SYN-Vander's generator and I can make it rain wings.

 

Before the new DM it was  something of a challenge as good gunnery paid off.  At the moment just a few squirts in the general direction is enough as the a.i. will soon go into a 1g+ turn and fall apart.

 

The challenge - and lets face it, against the a.i. it was always minimal - is now gone.

 

However, in ANPetrovich we have faith!:salute:

 

 

19 minutes ago, No.74_Waggaz said:

the curious thing is that UNDAMAGED wings are now folding more easily too.

 

Petrov has told us the wing spars are now "under modelled" so yeah, logically this is now a thing.

Edited by DD_Arthur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Petrov has told us the wing spars are now "under modelled" so yeah, logically this is now a thing.


Surely though the spars would have been too thin from the start? Unless Spars damage wasn't modelled pre-patch? AFAIK there shouldn't' have been any change to an undamaged spar's ability to take on Gs with the patch, but I could be wrong...
------------------

 

Did a couple very brief tests with TacView (planning to do more extensive tests) and noted some interesting stuff. 

Out of 6 or 7 undamaged dive tests with SPAD XIII, it seemed that a SPAD could pull out of a dive by violently pulling full elevator deflection* up to 260km/h, which would pull around 6G, and in some cases even 7G+. This apparently wouldn't damage the wings, and I was able to do this several times in a row within one flight. However, anywhere past 260 km/h and the wings would snap right off at between 2G to 3G, which would suggest that the speed becomes a factor in addition to G load. 

I then took a Halberstadt CL.II and found its upper speed limit for pulling violently out of a dive with full deflection - 240 km/h (which was IIRC about 5G). After putting a single bullet into the upper wing from the rear gun (note: The angle of shot was NOT totally flat, I.E not 100% chance of hitting spars) that went down to 220 Km/H. The same rang true consistently for 2 bullets through to 5 bullets. With 10 bullets in the wing it snapped off when I attempted it at 190 Km/H (I didn't attempt lower than this).

 

*As in, yanking back the control column as fast as I could towards the 6 O'Clock

 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:


Surely though the spars would have been too thin from the start? Unless Spars damage wasn't modelled pre-patch? AFAIK there shouldn't' have been any change to an undamaged spar's ability to take on Gs with the patch, but I could be wrong...
------------------

 

They re-did all the structural modelling for all aircraft from scratch for 4.005.

 

"Firstly, from the very beginning we eliminated several fundamental limitations of the DM-core, which prevented us from moving on. This immediately “untied” our hands and allowed us to simulate combat damage to the aircraft structure much more flexibly. After that, a lot of research was conducted and several methods for calculating the damage of airframe elements from various types of ammunition were tried. The goal of this research was set quite ambitious (however, this is not the first time for us). We wanted to go away as far as possible from using the “game” settings of the DM, and use as many parameters and characteristics of the airframe from real life as possible. 

 

The main news is that our new damage model now uses data taken from blueprints and technical documentation. Such as: the number of structural elements of one or another part of the airframe, their material and geometric dimensions. An engineer who sets up the DM no longer needs to invent anything and rely on dubious empirical data. Now everything is extremely concrete and objective: what figures from documents you put in the model, such resistance to combat damage you get."

 

 

And, obviously (unfortunately), if you put in the wrong parameters, like spar thickness for instance, the model will produce wrong results...

 

Edited by kendo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

The main news is that our new damage model now uses data taken from blueprints and technical documentation. Such as: the number of structural elements of one or another part of the airframe, their material and geometric dimensions. An engineer who sets up the DM no longer needs to invent anything and rely on dubious empirical data. Now everything is extremely concrete and objective: what figures from documents you put in the model, such resistance to combat damage you get."

 

 

 

This is all true and good.  You can find any information about the properties of materials, for this there is all the data.  Also, methods for calculating the strength of aircraft wings are not classified information.  But where do you get the tables, guides, calculation methods to account for damage from firearms and reduce the structural strength at the same time?  I think such information does not exist.

 

p.s.  This plane was damaged during the flight, but was able to safely land.

 

IMG_7887.JPG

IMG_7888.JPG

IMG_7889.JPG

IMG_7890.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Two issues:

 

1. Putting the correct structural data parameters into the model. They have already admitted there are errors here. In WW2 side extra spar was added for P51, and omitted for Pe2. In WW1 Petrovich said about the incorrect thickness for spars. (Maybe understandable given the sheer amount of data that some errors would creep in)

 

2. As you say, the calculation methods to determine how much a structure is weakened for a particular hit. I believe they went through several different attempts/ iterations during the testing process. This is probably a matter of trial and error and judgement as much as anything else.

 

So, (1) is definitely being fixed. Maybe that in itself will produce enough of a change to pull things in the right direction. Regarding (2), I believe from Petrovich's point 9 from his post earlier in this thread that they may be re-examining it too.

 

Quote

9. But this is only one side of the problem. The other side is that we need to improve the airframe DM from AP bullets anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/22/2020 at 9:04 PM, US93_Larner said:


I think this has been by far the most noticeable feature post-new-DM, and where people have compared to RoF - it seems like with even the most minimal damage (as little as 2 or 3 hits in some cases) the ability to withstand any more than 1.0G is almost zero. I did a little testing using Tacview to calculate Gs and in one example I saw a Fokker D7's wing come off after 3 hits to the spar. The Wing failure occurred at roughly 1.3 Gs! 

I'm planning on doing some more thorough testing when possible. If you'd like, I could PM you any results once I have a good amount of data, or I could set up another(!!) thread for you to take a look at whenever is most convenient for you 😉

Thanks again for taking the time to explain the new features!

 

It is even more than that, you do need any bullets to prove that.

 

Following situation:

 

Landing with a FULLY intact D.VII F or Halberstadt (it is just those examples as we fly Central this month)  ... at the end when you are about to come to a halt your plane just takes a light bounce to one of the sides and your wing tip touches the ground, the whole wing structure collapses and falls off and you have a ditch. That was not happening pre-patch.

 

So in this sense, it has nothing to do with bullets, wings are just weaker as if the post by Jason from 2013 was still valid for this scenario as well.

 

 

Edited by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ok, what I’m about to say may come out as a bit of a jumble, I’m not very eloquent or practiced at putting words onto paper and there’s quite a bit that needs to come out , so please bare with me and forgive the rambling nature.  I apologise if I don’t use the correct engineering terms, or maybe use them in the wrong context,  however hopefully you will be able to understand the direction if not the specific destination.

 

I wonder if there isn’t a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of biplane wings, how they are constructed, why they are constructed as they are, and the forces exerted on them.  I want you to keep three words uppermost in your mind while you consider what I’m saying; hinge, stiffness, folding.  First I will pose a couple of questions, then I will present a situation and then I will ask some more questions. I use a Camel as the example because that is the aircraft that Andre used as his example.

 

1).  How thick is the spar on a Camel ?   You don’t need to be exact,  Is it closer to 3 inches or 3 feet ?

 

2)   How heavy are a Camels wings ?   (Just the wings, not the whole aircraft)

 

3)   How heavy are a Camels wings when it is flying ?    (Just the wings, not the whole aircraft)

 

4)    How heavy are a Camels wings when it is flying  and it is turning at a loading of 2G ?

 

Using Andre’s example (a bit), we have a Camel being attacked by an enemy aircraft, an Albatros, 100 yards behind, dead six, the majority of observed rounds are hitting the Camels lower wing.  The Camels rear spar is hit repeatedly, to the point that it loses all structural integrity at one point.  At this time does the wing fail ?  If not, does the wing fail when the Camel dives and starts to turn adding extra load onto the wing and if so how much load  ?

 

Now lets consider the situation if it was reversed and the Camel was shooting the Albatros, exactly the same, the Camel shoots, scoring several critical hits on the rear spar of the Albatros’s Lower wing.  At what point does the wing fail, level flight,  2G, 3G ?   Yes, you’re right, it’s a trick question, the Albatros only has one spar in it’s lower wing.  Having the rear spar, in the lower wing destroyed to the point it vanishes has absolutely no impact on the wing strength, because it didn’t have one to start with

 

So go back to the Camel, if the rear spar is snapped clean in half, will the wing fail, remembering that, of course,  the Albatros seems to get along perfectly well (most of the time) without one ?

 

I have to confess that I was a little concerned when I read that Andre thought that the wooden spars on some aircraft were too thin, even by up to 70%.  Whether this was in relation to the D, VII I don’t know, but I had visions of Fokkers built like battleships and Sopwith’s and Spad’s built like spaghetti.  It did however get me thinking about spars and why they are as they are.

 

Back to the poor old Albatros, as we can see, it flys perfectly well with only one spar in it’s lower wing, indeed their is nothing to suggest that this design style is any weaker than a wing with two spars, or at least in load carrying capacity.  It did have a reputation for failing though, but not because it couldn’t handle the gravitational loads imposed on it.  It failed because, as we well know, at certain speeds it would flutter , causing enough stress to overload the wing to the point that it failed, or to be more accurate, certain elements failed.  What was the problem, what caused this flutter, why didn’t it happen in wings with two spars ?  It didn’t happen in aircraft, like the Camel, because the wing spars provided stiffness or rigidity.  

 

So now to answer the questions I first posed, or at least my understanding of the answers, and to get to the nub of the point. 

 

How thick is the Spar on a Camel ?  Well I think it is closer to 3 feet than 3 inches,  more at the wing root and tapering to the wing tip, it is in fact the top and bottom wing, including the bits in the middle.  Ridiculous I hear you say, but consider this.  The whole wing structure is a spar/beam, not just the actual wooden bits.  Certainly it doesn’t much look like a beam, but that is what (I think) it is.  It is like a double webbed I beam, the wings are the flanges, the wires and interplane struts the web. Of course the trouble with an I beam is that it has the aerodynamic properties of, well, an I beam, which if truth be told isn’t very good. However, clever people, being cleaver people , they realised that they could get rid of most, if not all,  of the web and still have a structure that was strong enough for the job in hand.  What was important was that the bits of web that were left were strong enough to still support the rest of the load carried by the flanges/beam/wings/spars.  So what then is the load carried by the beam/spars, I hear you shout (possibly in exasperation by this point).  Well that takes me to the question I asked about the weight of a camels wings.  With the aircraft parked, the weight of the wings is approximately 73 KG, however when flying the wings essentially become weightless, whether the aircraft is at 1G or several G’s the wings are essentially weightless as long as there is enough power to provide the required lift. The weight carried by the wings is all in the non-lifting parts of the aircraft, or about 500 Kg, almost all of which is centred around the fuselage in the middle.  So what then are the parts of the wing structure, under most pressure, carrying that load ?  The parts under most strain are the bits of the web, wires and interplane struts, and their attachment points, that remain from the pairing back of the I beam.  They are the bits that stop the flanges (wings) from bending or more particularly Hinging about the weakest parts of the beam, the points carrying the most load (fuselage etc).  The weakest points are the web fixing points or the fulcrum point (wires and struts), unless that point is reinforced in some manner then that is the point that will give way first.  If the wooden spar was just held at one end (cantilevered) and the spar was damaged then the weakest point, depending on damage, might be the point of damage, but if supported at each end and not carrying any particular weight at the damaged point ( and we have possibly established that a wing in flight is essentially weightless) then it will not be subject to any additional loading, almost regardless of the amount of G.  Biplanes with more than one bay per wing are stronger because they essentially have more web (wire and struts), the penalty is drag but they become much much stronger because the loading on any single web attachments is much lower.  

 

So, we ask ourselves, what the bloody hell are the spars for then, if not load carrying strength ?  Well, let’s face it, they are rather thin and weedy, it’s hardly surprising that they can’t carry the weight of the fuselage, engine, pilot, guns, fuel etc etc and if we remember the Albatros designers reckoned they only needed one in their lower wing (and that aircraft is considerably heavier than a Camel), so what then.   Rigidity or wing stiffness, what the Albatros didn’t have was wing stiffness, the wing would flutter and break at certain amplitudes.  What the wooden spars do is provide wing stiffness, they do not carry the weight of the aircraft.  Yes, on the ground they carry their own weight, but once airborne, their main job is to provide wing stiffness not strength.  They might indeed snap, and take the wing with them, if damaged, but that is more likely to be from excess speed and drag and even then it is likely that it will be other parts, attachments that will fail first.

 

I will leave you with one final thought.  If a wing were to fold, where would it fold (hinge) ?  Is it going to fold at a point between two supports, even though that section of wing is supported by lift and essentially weightless, or is it going to break at a fulcrum (hinge) point, such as the part of the wing beyond the outer wing struts (cantilevered), or if the attachment point, to the wing, at the outer struts is broken, then at the next fulcrum point along, probably by the cockpit  ?   The weakest part of a biplane wing, if well designed and structurally sound, are the wing tips, outboard of the outer struts.  They are cantilevered but not particularly robust.  Then again in the context of battle damage they are less likely to catastrophically endanger the aircraft if damaged (unless the break point also damages the strut attachment point) and, lets face it, if your shooting at, and hitting the wing tips, expecting critical damage to occur, then maybe you should reconsider your whole approach to shooting down enemy aircraft.

 

I’m not an engineer, or even overly clever, so the above might be complete piddle, but I’ve been thinking about it all day and just needed to get it of my chest.

 

HTH

Edited by HagarTheHorrible
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

So, we ask ourselves, what the bloody hell are the spars for then, if not load carrying strength ?  

 

The wing structure on a conventional wire-braced biplane is essentially the same load-bearing wise as that of a box-girder bridge, supported at the ends, and with a weight in the middle. The top wing spar is under compression. It has to be, since wires won't carry compressive loads. The wing struts transfer compressive loads vertically, and the ribs transfer the aerodynamic loads to the spars - which then transfer them to the bracing wires. In addition to carrying most of the tensile loads, it is the wires that provide almost all of the resistance to twisting.

 

Wood is strong in compression. Wire is strong in tension. Structural integrity requires both. The spar does a lot more than add rigidity.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, nickj123 said:

 

I've seen wires lost on the Albatros and had a strut detached from part of the wing on a Pfalz.

 

But was that after it started showing surface damage to wing , or was it only showing damage to wires and strut?

RE: DM

The point I'm asking is about hitbox. Is it whole wing ?  ie do u see damage to wing and wires and strut , or can it just show damage on the latter only?

As far as I can tell u really can't isolate what is really hit and damaged on wing from visuals with certainty.

Just because a wing shows a bullet hole , does not mean it represents a single bullet, or even correct location of the hit. I don't think visuals are that accurate.

 

43 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

The wing structure on a conventional wire-braced biplane is essentially the same load-bearing wise as that of a box-girder bridge, supported at the ends, and with a weight in the middle. The top wing spar is under compression. It has to be, since wires won't carry compressive loads. The wing struts transfer compressive loads vertically, and the ribs transfer the aerodynamic loads to the spars - which then transfer them to the bracing wires. In addition to carrying most of the tensile loads, it is the wires that provide almost all of the resistance to twisting.

 

Wood is strong in compression. Wire is strong in tension. Structural integrity requires both. The spar does a lot more than add rigidity.

 

Except on DR1 which has no wing wires...

Edited by =RS=Stix_09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Except on DR1 which has no wing wires...

 

As I said, I'm referring to a conventional wire-braced biplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

The wing structure on a conventional wire-braced biplane is essentially the same load-bearing wise as that of a box-girder bridge, supported at the ends, and with a weight in the middle. The top wing spar is under compression. It has to be, since wires won't carry compressive loads. The wing struts transfer compressive loads vertically, and the ribs transfer the aerodynamic loads to the spars - which then transfer them to the bracing wires. In addition to carrying most of the tensile loads, it is the wires that provide almost all of the resistance to twisting.

 

Wood is strong in compression. Wire is strong in tension. Structural integrity requires both. The spar does a lot more than add rigidity.

 

I’m not sure I agree.  I think a biplane is different, because when the aircraft is flying, the top wing spars, or wing, between the fuselage and outer struts, are pulling up evenly, or at least generating lift evenly, there isn’t less lift, or extra weight, in the centre of the bay.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the section in between the fuselage and interplane struts is actually getting even more support because the, unsupported,  wingtips will actually flex the section of wing, opposite the pivot point up. The attachment point of the flying wires/interplane struts, to the upper wing, moves the load point (shares the load point ?) with the hinge moment (point) that would normally be found at the attachment closest to the load (fuselage) such as you might typically find in a cantilever wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

I’m not sure I agree.  I think a biplane is different, because when the aircraft is flying, the top wing spars, or wing, between the fuselage and outer struts, are pulling up evenly, or at least generating lift evenly, there isn’t less lift, or extra weight, in the centre of the bay.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the section in between the fuselage and interplane struts is actually getting even more support because the, unsupported,  wingtips will actually flex the section of wing, opposite the pivot point up. The attachment point of the flying wires/interplane struts, to the upper wing, moves the load point (shares the load point ?) with the hinge moment (point) that would normally be found at the attachment closest to the load (fuselage) such as you might typically find in a cantilever wing.

 

I've no idea what you are disagreeing with. It is a simple undeniable fact that something in the structure of the wing must be counteracting the tensile loads the wires put on it. And since other wires cannot resist compressive loads, the only thing left to do it is the wooden parts of the wing: and given that most of the compressive loads are inwards, it is the spars that do that job.

 

As for the wing attachment points, they aren't designed to take any significant bending loads at all. They don't need to be, since the wires transfer the bending loads to the structure.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, emely said:

These wings look strong enough 🙂

IMG_7885.thumb.JPG.82ee598d7ccae3f54580658ab3d17493.JPG

Is that a Bristol?

looks like one of McGouns landings lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Over in the WWII side they said they found the spars on the FC aircraft were too small, but that post seemingly has been removed.

 

Edit: Oops, my bad, found it.

Edited by II./JG1_Kliegmann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Is that a Bristol?

looks like one of McGouns landings lol

And you said you wouldn't tell

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Is that a Bristol?

looks like one of McGouns landings lol

Looks like an RE8 to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, emely said:

These wings look strong enough 🙂

IMG_7885.thumb.JPG.82ee598d7ccae3f54580658ab3d17493.JPG


This is absolute proof, if proof were needed, that it’s the wires that support the weight of a biplane. 😁

  • Haha 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen trees go down after short bursts with the MG3. And I know that the 7,92mmx57 is a more powerful ammunition compared to our 7,62mmx49.

Earnest question:

If young trees standing around "relaxed" break apart - why could wooden wingspars in 1918 take the same dammage "under stress" without breaking?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...