Jump to content
US93_Larner

4.006 DM Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

31 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I find this hard to believe, as jerking a control colum takes far more travel than a flightstick on the PC plus the control forces can be higher (dpending on the type of aircraft). I think pilots were painfully aware of the flimsy nature of their rides and treated them with care. Probably most of the lads have seen one go down after ripping off the wings. Ripping the column back would translate into knowingly attempting suicide for not getting killed.

 

Your chart shows that 3 g is actually a lot regarding how those lads fought close in combat. The chart shows one thing clear, namely that the common combat speed of the aircraft was far lower than we fly them in the game. I'm sure most of the time during maneuvers, they hardly exceeded 150 km/h, making it impossible to pull much more g than 3 without flicking out of the turn.

 

Also in order to pull 5+ g, the crate had to go maybe 250 km/h, which is well over maximum flight speed and far above maneuvering speed. We routinely fly that fast, as we attack in a way the common pilot would flee for his life.

 

Nope, you would not need to go 250 Km/h to exceed 5g: Ballpark Camel calculation: W=659 Kg, wing area 22.43 sqm, Clmax assumed at 1.26 gives speed 43 m/s or circa 156 Km/h.

 

33 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I actually agree: I can well imagine a novice pilot with 10 hours in type, finding himself under fire for the first time, exceeding his limits before taking a single hit. 

 

Concerning the risk of overstressing the wings, I guess those guys back then were not as cool under fire as you and ZachariasX seem to be. :lol:

 

Edited by Holtzauge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

I guess those guys back then were not as cool under fire as you and ZachariasX seem to be

Not cool, affraid of too many different things.

 

3 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

[...] gives speed 43 m/s or circa 156 Km/h.

...fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

The link goes to report about the calculated loads on a high speed aeroplane in flight (BE2 ;) )  no sign of the chart or anything about Camels etc.  

 

Oops, try this one.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny part is that we present some real accounts of pilots and mechanics telling about long dogfights, several hits, gashes, and planes coming back banged up on a daily basis, no shaking planes, etc.

 

Then you guys start posting long conspiracy theories and calculations and numbers that no one will read to prove the contrary.

 

I wonder where it goes from here.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Oops, try this one.

 

It's OK I got it. Figure 8 is interesting... you see the earlier ones with hardly anything spiking as high as n=4, then :o:

 

Has anyone found the undamaged game limits in a Brisfit yet?

 

 

Share this post


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

 

It's OK I got it. Figure 8 is interesting... you see the earlier ones with hardly anything spiking as high as n=4, then :o:

 

 

I think you're misreading the recordings. There are two sets of data: accelerations (i.e. G, scale on left) and airspeed (scale on right). As I read it, G doesn't exceed about 4 in that chart either.

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


Oh, absolutely, I bet there were cases where that happened. Distinguishing between those cases and 'Shot to Pieces' cases are very difficult, though. 

I find it exceptionally easy to hit 4G in a dogfight as it stands! In a SPAD, you'll be hitting 5G pretty frequently as well, and even 6G if you're a more aggressive BnZer - and as Zach just said, "Your chart shows that 3 g is actually a lot regarding how those lads fought close in combat". Which is really interesting given the direction the discussion has been taking! 
 


In that case, according to the G-meter in game, S.E's should be falling apart after every attempted BnZ! 

Great post by the way. That R&M is a sweet find. 

 

Yes, for sure: there were probably cases when the wing had been weakened by battle damage or the "golden BB" hits to a strut joint or bracing wire but the overwhelming parts of a WW1 scout wing is just fabric and ribs and  load bearing members that had a degree of alternative load paths. In addition, I'm sure many pilots who saw extensive damage as in multiple holes in their fabric would bug out. Knowing what I know about structural engineering I for one would not take any chances but scoot and fly gentle 1.5g turns on the way home. Who knows with what angle the hits entered and what is the status of the hidden internal structure?

 

And yes, I have noticed now that we have the g-meter that you can momentarily pull rather high g's even in FC but that should also be theoretically possible, at least provided the stick forces are not too excessive but I don't have any data on that.

 

Regarding the SE5 then yes, I can see how my post above has landed me many new friends in the SE5 community for sure! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You are right - I had become transfixed by the line which was actually airspeed.  :blush:

 

The other report discusses stick forces in conjunction with load factor, so you might be able to make more sense of that than I.  The authors were pointing out that a BE ought to be able, theoretically, to pull up to 10G in a pull out from a dive in less than a second, given speed, AoA and stick forces, so future designs needed to work towards that sort of limit.

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

The funny part is that we present some real accounts of pilots and mechanics telling about long dogfights, several hits, gashes, and planes coming back banged up on a daily basis, no shaking planes, etc.

 

Then you guys start posting long conspiracy theories and calculations and numbers that no one will read to prove the contrary.

 

I wonder where it goes from here.


At some point anecdote has to be trued with other sources and turned into a workable model if we want an even halfway claim to realism. If a different than realistic experience is desired where things are more impressionistic then the same thing applies just with the knobs twiddled differently. My point is whether you want your model constructed on the basis of anecdote or research at some point you are going to have to deal with numbers and calculations.

Edited by slug_yuugen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The other report discusses stick forces in conjunction with load factor, so you might be able to make more sense of that than I.  The authors were pointing out that a BE ought to be able, theoretically, to pull up to 10G in a pull out from a dive in less than a second, given speed, AoA and stick forces, so future designs needed to work towards that sort of limit.

 

Yep, figure 4 in that report is interesting since it shows what g-load is possible from an aerodynamic perspective (10.5 being the max) with a 160 lb pull force which for sure is quite high but still based on what the authors of the report considered should be used as a limit. Anyway, would be nice to hear some more ultimate load factor numbers for other WW1 scouts if anyone has that kind of data.

Share this post


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

In addition, I'm sure many pilots who saw extensive damage as in multiple holes in their fabric would bug out.


Yeah, they would! While reading the analyses for 8 German Aces' claims there seems to be a common theme of pilots landing or crashing very quickly after getting badly shot-up. Some flew home, as well. I'm not finding very many instances at all of wings coming off, though - only three so far (and two were monoplanes). 

I find something similar in the game, in that once I'm really shot up I immediately want to get out of there, and often will land the thing ASAP. However, now pilots aren't getting the chance, because one good burst has their wings off before they've manoeuvred to escape..!

 

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

I for one would not take any chances but scoot and fly gentle 1.5g turns on the way home.


Your opponent might have a say in that 😅

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

...142 hitboxes that would need to be individually applied, tested for bugs, coded to interact with bullets of different calibers, coded to detect and react accordingly to collisions, coded to detect and react accordingly to over-stress, coded to represent the material the Spar is made from....etc. etc. etc. 

 

and probably part of the resources the game uses, adding to the processing overhead of everything that is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I hope I didn't post that. If I did, it was an accident for sure.  I won't try to correct myself here as it wouldonly be my unsupportedestimate.  I have made all preparations for flying the Dr1 with a G meter mounted in the cockpit. I need a dry day now to fly it and post actual results. 

 

Ok, this will be REALLY interesting to know, I am waiting.

 

@Chill31 on a scale from 1-10 (10 being the highest) how would you describe how far do you bring your airplane to the edge?

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

 

Ok, this will be REALLY interesting to know, I am waiting.

 

@Chill31 on a scale from 1-10 (10 being the highest) how would you describe how far do you bring your airplane to the edge?

 

S!

 

I'm guessing that f he knew the answer to that, we probably wouldn't be seeing many more posts from him.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing at 2-3, but hey some folks do like to live on the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)


"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."

 

.......but, Hey !  Nobody payed any attention when this was posted in 2011, so it's probably pointless repeating it here.

 

Solution - Get rid of multiple hit boxes in the wings, apart from showing superficial bullet hole damage, and concentrate on the vital bits, like the wires and wire attachment points.  Hitting wires isn't impossible, just not a regular occurance, and so wing failiure isn't impossible, just not a regular occurance.

 

What constitues "Dead six" when shooting at a wing, 1 deg, 5 deg, 20 deg, 30 deg ?

Edited by HagarTheHorrible
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Some go up to 11.

 

Nigel Tufnel - Alchetron, The Free Social EncyclopediaUp to eleven - Wikipedia

Edited by Adam
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VERY interesting quote from "Under the Guns of the German Aces",  p.114, which echoes the discussion so far:
 

Quote

As the fight developed, Reeves found himself being chased by a German fighter. Reeves threw his Nieuport around the sky in his efforts to shake loose his tormentor, but then his wings were seen to fold and peel away from his fuselage -- whether shot away by the German Scout's machine gun fire or by the stresses induced by his own violent manoeuvring remains unclear.


 

Share this post


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

Some go up to 11.


I modded my Warthog Throttle to go to 11.  Some have pointed out that I could just change the scale so that it only goes to 10.  But I wanted a throttle that goes to 11.

 

I also think there is a problem with the damage model for our drummers.  They keep spontaneously combusting.

Edited by BraveSirRobin
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

VERY interesting quote from "Under the Guns of the German Aces",  p.114, which echoes the discussion so far:

 

What I find odd is that you could do that with the original damage model. I do have some tracks with enemy planes folding wings due to harsh evasive maneuvers, and I wasn't sure if it was due to bullets or just the stress on the frame or the combination of both. That was expected and it felt realistic [in the original damage model].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Not one mention of planes losing wings in any combat report from the 93rd or 103rd. Reviewed every after action report. Mostly out of control vrilles, out of control steep sharp dives, pilot kills, crashes, and a shitload of "no results".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

What I find odd is that you could do that with the original damage model. I do have some tracks with enemy planes folding wings due to harsh evasive maneuvers, and I wasn't sure if it was due to bullets or just the stress on the frame or the combination of both. That was expected and it felt realistic [in the original damage model].


I remember the same thing...I had one fight where a D.VII snapped its wings....because of the sheer sharpness of the turn the guy did while diving I thought he must have broken his joystick 😆

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:


I modded my Warthog Throttle to go to 11.  Some have pointed out that I could just change the scale so that it only goes to 10.  But I wanted a throttle that goes to 11.

 

I also think there is a problem with the damage model for our drummers.  They keep spontaneously combusting.

 

Awesome!

27 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

 Not one mention of planes losing wings in any combat report from the 93rd or 103rd. Reviewed every after action report. Mostly out of control vrilles, out of control steep sharp dives, pilot kills, crashes, and a shitload of "no results".

 

Look at the struts and wires on the SPAD. I think there's more bracing on that thing than any other fighter from WW1. Of course, I'm sure some smart ass with correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No mention of any German plane coming apart is what I was getting at. 

 

Certainly were a few mentions of spads in flames.

Share this post


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

Look at the struts and wires on the SPAD. I think there's more bracing on that thing than any other fighter from WW1. Of course, I'm sure some smart ass with correct me.

 

135.png

 

 

Yeah it has a lot of bracing, and I don't understand this stuff myself.

 

I'm trying to understand why the Pfalz can pull 10g. It was supposed to be tough, so I assume it could pull more than other planes? I have no way to disprove it.

 

That's likely what they achieved: built it for sheer strength at the cost of speed (top speed 167km/h in-game), whereas the Albatros D.Va was wrongly built for speed (...169km/h) at the cost of strength.

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

You know, compared to the wing spar, the ailerons are utter redundant hitboxes. It just doesn't matter if they get hit compared to what a broken spar does. Somehow, people realize that structure should be represented in hitboxes, hence we have the silly aileron hitboxes. Now, who ever lost an aileron in flight? Has that been seen, ever? I could take away those two hitboxes and nobody would notice. Yet we have them, the ONLY hitboxes representing individual structure components.

 

I would not want to get eternal ailerons from all planes, because the aileron is something that falls off from the cheating F a little earlier

 

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

 

Ok, this will be REALLY interesting to know, I am waiting.

 

@Chill31 on a scale from 1-10 (10 being the highest) how would you describe how far do you bring your airplane to the edge?

 

S!

 

There are many edges! So I suppose it depends on which edge you have in mind.  Speed...I've hit 140 mph in a dive.  G-loading...I have yet to measure it, but based on feel, maybe 2.5Gs. Aerobatic manuevers...I have done them all as much as I can.  I don't do "snap" or "flick" maneuvers though.  They really aren't suitable for the Dr.I.  The FC Dr.I does them readily, however, the real Dr.I does not stall easily enough to do them.  It would wallow around the sky if I tried.  

 

I think the Dr.I is good for 4-5 Gs reliably.  Probably 165 mph (before the engine begins to overspeed).  You can see how much room I have left by comparing the numbers, so maybe 6 or 7?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

The link goes to report about the calculated loads on a high speed aeroplane in flight (BE2 ;) )  no sign of the chart or anything about Camels etc.  

 

Edit - solved. The link goes to report 496, the report you refer to is 469   496 also worth having a look at.   

These values are what I expect to see in the DrI. http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/469.pdf

Share this post


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

I would not want to get eternal ailerons from all planes,

I was not disounting the need of aileron hitboxes, I just put them in perspective to how I would value a spar hitbox. That was my intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The relevant bits:

 

sCp3CbZ.jpg

 

imqy0KN.jpg

 

lCzVmkv.jpg

 

In other words: 12-13g is probably momentarily attainable, 11g definitely reached, though briskly pulling out of a prolonged dive into a loop and then reducing elevator input should only net 5g.

 

This is interesting, this would certainly suggest that planes were not correctly designed to handle expected g loads or instead that pilots still managed to exceed them. If the latter is the case, then the g tolerance in FC is too low, and under circumstances where the wing fails catastrophically, it should probably only be warped or otherwise overstressed.

 

By comparison, a modern aerobatic machine, such as an Extra 300S, has a +10 / -10g safe limit. However, ultimate failure is only reached at 24g:

http://www.gforceaerobatics.com/about/aircraft/

 

Food for thought!

 

 

P.S. I find these figures wild, but I'm not going to contradict the math. As I've said before, anything above 5 or 6g in a wood and fabric biplane seems bonkers to me.

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

 

P.S. I find these figures wild, but I'm not going to contradict the math. As I've said before, anything above 5 or 6g in a wood and fabric biplane seems bonkers to me.

 

The maths is not the problem, but you have misinterpreted what it is about [edit - perhaps? Or is your wording just a little unclear?].

 

No-where does it say that a BE2 could sustain 10Gs  without breaking up.  This is the theoretical load that would be applied with the specified stick force and speed, given the BE2s wing/elevator/tail design.  The whole point of the paper is to show that future designs should incorporate the ability to withstand 10G, not that they already do. 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Check out this report R&M 491 on the SE5: According to the analysis, it can take 5.5g only and then the wing fails. This was why I commented earlier on the actual g-measurements in R&M 496 being as high as 4 g's in mock combat. Going THAT close to structural failure makes my hair stand on end. Now if you pull 4g in mock combat, how big is the risk you would pull that little bit extra when the tracers wizz by your head? In addition, tried the SE5  yesterday in FC and while I did just a few tries the wings came off at 5-7g's so the devs again seem to have done a marvelous job in modeling. In addition, while I did not try enough to positively confirm, it looked like the damage was accumulating every time you got the exceeded limits warning. So looks like doing a few high g turns in sequence could add up to a wing fail even at lower g's next time in-game.

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

The maths is not the problem, but you have misinterpreted what it is about [edit - perhaps? Or is your wording just a little unclear?].

 

No-where does it say that a BE2 could sustain 10Gs  without breaking up.  This is the theoretical load that would be applied with the specified stick force and speed, given the BE2s wing/elevator/tail design.  The whole point of the paper is to show that future designs should incorporate the ability to withstand 10G, not that they already do. 

 

Yes, I understand this is just a mathematical model, hence I wrote:

 

This is interesting, this would certainly suggest that planes were not correctly designed to handle expected g loads or instead that pilots still managed to exceed them. If the latter is the case, then the g tolerance in FC is too low, and under circumstances where the wing fails catastrophically, it should probably only be warped or otherwise overstressed.

 

In other words: the Royal Aircraft Factory (the manufacturer of the B.E.2) already knew that their S.E.5a would be subjected to 10g+ loads and built it accordingly, and pilots still managed to pull the wings off at even higher g loads, which suggests that there's a problem with FC. Or that they were not designed to handle such loads. For me the most logical answer is somewhere in between: expected g loads were in the 5-6g range (5 times normal) and while 10g may not have caused catastrophic failure, it certainly didn't do the wings any good.

 

EDIT: Okay I think I see what you mean. What I find wild is that you CAN pull 10g, not that the wing is able to handle it or not.

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thing to remember is that load factor is a dimensionless and relative value. 10g in one aircraft is not equivalent in terms of forces to 10g in a different aircraft just their relative magnitudes. For example to pull 10g in a level turn the aircraft just needs to be able to perform a balanced turn at approximately 82 (thanks Holtzauge) degrees of bank.

Edited by slug_yuugen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, slug_yuugen said:

Thing to remember is that load factor is a dimensionless and relative value. 10g in one aircraft is not equivalent in terms of forces to 10g in a different aircraft just their relative magnitudes. For example to pull 10g in a level turn the aircraft just needs to be able to perform a balanced turn at approximately 84 degrees of bank.


The operative word here is a balanced (coordinated) level turn. The flight envelope of the aircraft needs to allow for it. In reality the wing will enter an accelerated stall before that.

 

On top of that 5G already causes COVID-19, I don’t even want to think what 10G could do.

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

EDIT: Okay I think I see what you mean. What I find wild is that you CAN pull 10g, not that the wing is able to handle it or not.

 

I think this is because of the intuition, which it took me a while to get over, that more "speed" somehow creates more G, hence these older slow planes must have had lower potential to create Gs, when actually it is the rotation, which higher speeds might actually hinder. As in the BE report  - the highest G pullout is not at the highest speed.

 

 I have to admit that I looked at the diagrams first (bad habit), had rather the same reaction as your good self, then went back and read the thing carefully.  I had a little bet with myself that someone would be quoting the report as evidence that BEs did actually do 10G pullouts:  I thought you had qualified but not quite. :)  10gs would, I have absolutely no doubt, pull the wings of any SE5 that tried it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right but my point is more to illustrate high load factors in a much easier to calculate manner than the paper above that isn't related to anything other than bank angle. Load factor in a level turn is just 1/cos(bank angle). Whether any individual aircraft is capable of sustaining for any length of time a 10g level turn in terms of it's flight envelope is a different question. Basically as a comparison to high load factors from quick control adjustments at high speed they're not crazy by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find it hard to hold the turn coordinated at 82.26 bank angle and I sometimes end up in a 82.78 degrees or 11 g turn but then I need more practice I suppose......

  • Haha 1

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...