Jump to content
US93_Larner

4.006 DM Discussion

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Tycoon my suggestion is to fly the Bristol. 

Why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Recruiting you for the No.20 squadron.

Trust me if this is the last dm update nobody is going to be recruiting anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

Are you serious?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that about sums it up !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Recruiting you for the No.20 squadron.

nope

 

20 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

Why

you might last longer than a few rounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

 

 

you might last longer than a few rounds

In other words every 60 seconds in Africa a minute passes. 

Share this post


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

In other words every 60 seconds in Africa a minute passes. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I'm seeing is your not lasting 60 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad we have the G counter now

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Are you serious?

You broke your wings doing 6 g. You will break most real aircraft like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

You broke your wings doing 6 g. You will break most real aircraft like that.

The point is in game you can pull 6g all day and all night but a few rounds and the wing is gone.

Share this post


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

The point is in game you can pull 6g all day and all night but a few rounds and the wing is gone.

And my point is you can do that all day long and still take more hits in the Bristol than the weaker planes. Looks like we got what we got and have to make the best with what we got. Got it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tycoon said:

The point is in game you can pull 6g all day and all night but a few rounds and the wing is gone.

If absolute structural limit is *maybe* 6.5 g, then pullling 6 g all day long is something you absolutely wouldn’t do.

 

It is just nice that the default strenght of our WW1 airframes tolerate this, but on a real aircraft of that kind you wouldn‘t count on that and you would limit your stick deflections. The video shows nothing implausible. Especially after damage.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Guys, please keep in mind the concept of a probability distribution for the number of hits needed to break a wing.

 

AnP did tests with thousands of trials to get a distribution like the one below for the old DM. Most common number of hits for a break in the old DM (from 6 o'clock) around 17/18, but even then some unlucky occasions only needed 3 hits! And sometimes you would be lucky and keep your wings even pulling 5G after 40 hits.

 

Same situation now, only everything will be moved to the right compared to the graph below.

 

But in any single flight there is a small possibility you will experience a freaky unlucky break at the far left of the range.

 

Judge it overall, over many flights. We don't have the ability to fly a thousand times to get a good idea of the changed average. 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_2020_05/Gs.JPG.dba6a1f2d98851483fc1018b2b43265c.JPG

Edited by kendo
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

If absolute structural limit is *maybe* 6.5 g, then pullling 6 g all day long is something you absolutely wouldn’t do.

 

It is just nice that the default strenght of our WW1 airframes tolerate this, but on a real aircraft of that kind you wouldn‘t count on that and you would limit your stick deflections. The video shows nothing implausible. Especially after damage.

So you are basically saying it's "nice" the game is inaccurate when it comes to pulling G's and also nice because it is accurate when there is damage to the wings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

And my point is you can do that all day long and still take more hits in the Bristol than the weaker planes. Looks like we got what we got and have to make the best with what we got. Got it? 

You can't expect people to not be disappointed.

Edited by Tycoon

Share this post


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

I have a theory, that hits from the front do extra special damage, so (far) fewer are required.

 

3 hours ago, Tycoon said:

Are you serious?

 

I do not believe that is just some theory but in fact stated to be the case;

 

Quote

51. The armor penetration ability and damage of projectile increases if the resulting impact velocity exceeds the muzzle velocity of a projectile in the reference test data;

 

Edited by Oliver88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

So you are basically saying it's "nice" the game is inaccurate when it comes to pulling G's and also nice because it is accurate when there is damage to the wings?

 

Weeeee!!!

 

WeepyClearDromaeosaur-size_restricted.gi

 

So apart from the Pfalz, which merrily pulls 10g because Palatinate engineering trumps all, pretty much every other biplane has an absolute structural limit of around 8-9g (without damage).


I got to around 8.5g on the Dolphin, for example. Look at that jerk and clean.

 

ImaginaryNeglectedHarborporpoise-size_re

 

I jerk the stick and the wings come clean off!

 

 

It's hard to say whether the wing actually fails a little earlier than that, but still generates enough lift to get that extra bit of g in.

 

Let's watch some more.

 

ThreadbareRealAustraliancattledog-size_r

 

OrganicThisIntermediateegret-size_restri

 

AmpleIncompatibleAmericancrocodile-size_

 

FreshEnergeticFoxterrier-size_restricted

 

Mesmerising, isn't it?

 

 

However, what I do find fascinating is that while pulling out of this dive, the Sopwith Dolphin retains as much instantaneous elevator authority as it does in level flight:

 

Pulling up from level flight:

Pn8NKNg.jpg

 

Pulling up from dive at near its structural limit (captured right at the moment of climax): phrasing?

lempert.jpg

 

 

Whereas, say, a P-51D (which has a similar absolute g limit as the Pfalz of around 10g) is not able to pull as much instantaneous g because it lacks elevator authority at speeds in which it could suffer structural damage:

 

Pulling up from level flight:

ywaz3PY.jpg

 

Pulling up from dive at near structural limit:

AoiBlR9.jpg

 

 

So in other words: yes, we are jerking our own wings off. phrasing!! 

 

I'm not convinced we should be able to. Obviously the speeds we are dealing with are much lower than those of WWII, but the control surfaces are also more rudimentary.

 

Well, except for the Pfalz. But there's nothing wrong with the Pfalz. DO NOT NERF THE PFALZ

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Initial 4.006 Report, Pt. 1: 

Towards the end of the 4.005 DM discussion, the thread took a very interesting turn: We started talking about the feel of the game, or in other words our expectations versus our perceived reality of the likelihood of wings falling off. @unreasonable's analysis of MvR's reported kills was a great tool in this discussion, giving some hard statistics for 'types' of kill (I.E, flames, pilot, wings off, etc). 

What we now have in 4.006 is a DM which is overall more accurate and, imo, a big improvement. The MAJOR plus, in regards to testing and talking about a 'historical' representation (I.E, a frequency of wings falling off that seems in-line with the historical reports), is that we are no longer dealing with incorrectly-sized Spars, so we no longer need to consider this as a possible source of 'historically implausible' rates of aircraft falling apart.

So, let's look at some numbers! 
 

For my initial DM tests, I shot down fifteen A.I. Alb D.Vas, SPAD 13s, and Fok. D.VIIs, to get an initial idea of what 'type' of shoot down was most common. The figures looked pretty good, and were more or less what I expected when looking at the charts provided by An Petrovich.

 

For reference, I used the SPAD XIII vs the German planes and the D.VII F vs the SPAD. 
 

r8FlpdIl.png
 

From there, these figures look pretty good - and reasonably plausible! There are possibly less 'flamers' than you'd read about, but cases of wing-shedding seem reasonable enough. Of course, no wing-sheds at all for the Fokker D.VII might be a little...off, but it's what we expected from Petrovich's charts. Now, let's compare that data to Manfred von Richthofen's 'Early' cases of specifically Pilot Kills, Wings Off and Flamers. Conveniently, they add up to 43 in total, which is a pretty good match against our data pool of 45. 

Now, this post is going to waffle on quite a bit more, so I'll put the rest in a spoiler for those who don't want to have to scroll past a big wall of text.

Report continued in the spoiler below:
 

Spoiler

Looking at the results for aircraft which specifically broke up, went down in flames, or went down with a killed pilot, 4.006's DM actually comes remarkably close to MvR's reports! Aircraft in flames is on the low side, but wing-shedding matches up very well.

 

sCS86NBl.png

cG1QBwEl.png

 

HOWEVER -- these tests were conducted Vs. A.I, which are notorious for being non-evasive and generally only performing flat, level turns. And so, some considerations will have to be made, and factoring in some additional data can be quite revealing. Indeed, the above charts really don't give you the full picture.  For instance, take a look at how many Aircraft wings actually do come off after the pilot has been killed: 

 

qGJ8IkAl.png

 

With this data, we can then come up with a more reasonable idea of how many aircraft are losing their wings after being fired on, without factoring in pilot death. This, naturally, is going to alter the figures quite a bit, and would look something like this. I've not included aircraft on fire in these results:

 

dkDAxbfl.png

 

As you can see here, factoring this into the picture shows that wing-shedding is actually more likely than when compared to MvR's figures. I still feel that we are definitely going in the right direction with 4.006's DM, but I still feel (INITIALLY) that wings are coming off too easily. That being said, it's worth noting that these aircraft typically would fall into either a spiral dive or a complete nosedive once the pilot was killed. However - that being said - you would have to assume that MvR would report an aircraft that behaved similarly as having broken up in the air when reporting on the kill. 

Let's look at the Albatros D.Va specifically for a moment, as it was reported as being one of the worst (if not the worst) affected aircraft by the 4.005 DM. We now see that, when specifically fighting A.I,  the D.Va is still losing its wings at a greater rate to that of any other type of shoot-down. Another important piece of the puzzle, ESPECIALLY when referencing An Petrovich's data, is how many rounds were used to bring down the aircraft! Interestingly, this seems to be quite widely varied, as we can see below. 

NOTE: It is important to remember that these are rounds FIRED at the Albatros - not rounds HIT! Therefore, the figures of rounds HIT are almost certainly lower!! 

 

Gz1pA3Zh.png

 

These provide some very, very interesting results! Although the majority of aircraft shed their wings at some point between being shot and hitting the ground, it would appear that the cases where aircraft retained their wings actually took more bullets than some aircraft that lost their wings! 

 

Another major thing that isn't factored in here, which is VERY important IMO when talking about the new DM, is AI-controlled aircraft VS. Human-controlled aircraft. Fortunately, I was able to grab my wingman Talbot to help me with some tests. I had him take an Albatros and face me in multiple mock-dogfights. We both flew as we would normally in multiplayer.

Once we had recorded 15 'types' of shoot-down for the Albatros, we compared that data to the A.I. kills to see how big of a difference there was. Here's what we found: 

 

daavderl.png

 

These figures suggest that the naturally more aggressive manoeuvres of a player-controlled Albatros will more quickly result in the machine losing its wings before the pilot is killed or the aircraft is set on fire. What I'm really curious about now, is what kind of G-loads the aircraft can sustain after certain amounts of damage, and also what kind of G-loads the typical manoeuvres a player might perform and consider "Safe" (A great example being the Split-S). 

That's all for now! 



 

 





 



 

 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well on your way to earning a Ph D in Combat Damageology.  (Dr. Larner I presume.)

Edited by J5_Klugermann
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 here's another one. ( btw forget how bad the ai is, couldn't get a ace level to even engage).

 

 

 

and here's one without any damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

So in other words: yes, we are jerking our own wings off. phrasing!! 

 

I'm not convinced we should be able to

I personally think they have it fairly close, That's a lot of stress placed on some not very large wooden pieces. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

I personally think they have it fairly close, That's a lot of stress placed on some not very large wooden pieces. 

 

The question isn't so much: "Should a WWI biplane's wings fail at 10g?"

 

A more interesting question is: "Can you physically pull hard enough on your strick to make a near instant +9g change in a WWI biplane?"

 

 

The only way we'll know for sure, is if @Chill31 sacrifices his Dr.I in the name of science everlasting fame nerd cred.

 

DistantUnfinishedHagfish-size_restricted

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

The question isn't so much: "Should a WWI biplane's wings fail at 10g?"

 

A more interesting question is: "Can you physically pull hard enough on your strick to make a near instant +9g change in a WWI biplane?"

 

 

The only way we'll know for sure, is if @Chill31 sacrifices his Dr.I in the name of science everlasting fame nerd cred.

 

DistantUnfinishedHagfish-size_restricted

But if our hunch is right there should be no danger at all, I'll go message him on facebook.👍😁

Edited by Tycoon
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

 here's another one. ( btw forget how bad the ai is, couldn't get a ace level to even engage).

 

 

 

and here's one without any damage.

 

Had same results.
5G is the limit, light wing damage (first visible decals level -small and sparse bullet holes ) pulled  5 + Gs and  wings collapsed

 

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some more initial testing by Talbot and myself has seemingly revealed something very interesting. 

It would appear that airspeed as well as G-loading will cause a wing-rip. In other words, the faster you go, the less Gs you can take. 

 

For example: When dive-testing an undamaged SPAD XIII today, I was able to pull 9G (or just over) out of a dive at 260 km/h. Respawning to get a fresh plane, I ripped my wings at about 8G when trying to pull out of a dive at 270 km/h.

Now, I only have a very base understanding of aerodynamics, but that seems odd to me...? Should higher airspeed limit an aircraft's ability to take on G force? 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm not reading that wall of text Larner.

 

6 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Some more initial testing by Talbot and myself

 

Fake news.

 

Speaking of Chill and his DR1, could he not just add some G-reading device to his cockpit and record the g's he's pulling in his "combat maneuver" videos?

Edited by US93_Talbot

Share this post


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

Some more initial testing by Talbot and myself has seemingly revealed something very interesting. 

It would appear that airspeed as well as G-loading will cause a wing-rip. In other words, the faster you go, the less Gs you can take. 

 

For example: When dive-testing an undamaged SPAD XIII today, I was able to pull 9G (or just over) out of a dive at 260 km/h. Respawning to get a fresh plane, I ripped my wings at about 8G when trying to pull out of a dive at 270 km/h.

Now, I only have a very base understanding of aerodynamics, but that seems odd to me...? Should higher airspeed limit an aircraft's ability to take on G force? 

 

Well you can read something about centrifugal force, but it depends as it's few variable on this. IMHO in theory more speed more Gs (if you can pull hard enough)

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Speaking of Chill and his DR1, could he not just add some G-reading device to his cockpit and record the g's he's pulling in his "combat maneuver" videos?


I think he actually has done that in the past. @Chill31 Could you confirm if possible? Cheers! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

A more interesting question is: "Can you physically pull hard enough on your strick to make a near instant +9g change in a WWI biplane?"

Yes your right, depending on the angle of your dive I would think. If your diving straight down then your controls would probably lock up kind like the P38 did at it's beginning. but if your on a slight angle and jerk up then I can see all kinds of bad things happening. 

7 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Speaking of Chill and his DR1, could he not just add some G-reading device to his cockpit and record the g's he's pulling in his "combat maneuver" videos?

Could you get the same G's in a DR1 as you would say a Spad? 

Share this post


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

Could you get the same G's in a DR1 as you would say a Spad? 


My (fairly uneducated) guess? Probably...if you can get a Dr.I going fast enough. The Dr.I was a very tough airframe (the prototype didn't even have interplanetary struts!). The SPAD was historically very tough as well. 

In terms of IRL testing? Not without potentially killing some poor pilot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

A more interesting question is: "Can you physically pull hard enough on your strick to make a near instant +9g change in a WWI biplane?"

 Good point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Could you get the same G's in a DR1 as you would say a Spad? 

 

If I had a real SPAD I'd let you know?

 

My thoughts are: you have a RL DR1 pull some basic "combat" maneuvers and do those same maneuvers in game and compare the g's. Hell the DR1 pilot plays the game so have him do BOTH since he could replicate what he did in the real DR1. If they match we can safely assume its correct across the board.

Edited by US93_Talbot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of things:

 

I don't think we should place too much weight on the MvR stats.  This is only  a very very small sample of the total, and is also not entirely objective.

 

Secondly, could not the failure of the Spads at differing speeds and g be simply a RNG situation?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So, trying to bring some perspective to what I've read so far: 

- 4.006, generally, is seen by most as an improvement on 4.005 (correct me if I'm wrong!) 
-Some parties are still underwhelmed by the amount of wing-shedding (again, correct me if I'm wrong!) 
- There are questions surrounding the resistance of aircraft to G-Forces in both a damaged and undamaged state, which is where we're generally at now. 

 

Talbot and I did some limited initial testing of aircraft damage VS. G-Forces earlier today - something we'd like to explore a little more in-depth. The GENERAL things we want to work out are: 

 

           a.  What manoeuvres would a pilot typically use in combat and deem 'safe'? 
           b. What kind of G forces do these manoeuvres cause? 

           c. Can damaged wings withstand these kind of manoeuvres? If so, how much damage can they take before a structural failure? 

And, totally dependent on if Chill31 would do some IRL tests for our benefit (which we would be eternally thankful for, I'm sure!), and, more importantly, if said tests could be done SAFELY: 

           d. Are the in-game manoeuvres causing 'realistic' Wing-Loading vs. the real thing? 
 

17 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Couple of things:

 

I don't think we should place too much weight on the MvR stats.  This is only  a very very small sample of the total, and is also not entirely objective.


I agree with this to a degree. What I think would be a better representation is to gather several anecdotal accounts from multiple sources, compare them for similarity, and then if ALL accounts seem to be GENERALLY similar, treat the resultant data as an anecdotal reference point. I will say that I would imagine reports that include higher amounts of detail to be probably more closer to 'the truth' - these guys, after all, put heavy emphasis on observation. 

I haven't gotten around to it yet (I might not end up doing so because I'm bloody lazy), but I want to go through the memoirs I own and log the differently-reported types of kills, compare them to Franks & Bailey's reports on aircraft losses of each nation for validity, and sort them into data sheets similar to the one Unreasonable created for MvR's reports. That way we can get a more varied 'historical' data pool. 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of risking the life of Chill, has anyone have a RC ww1 plane made from balsa, dive the sucker as fast as you can and at different angles then pull the stick back, see what happens. If I had my work shop up and my cnc routers going I'd give it a shot which I might do in the summer. 

When it comes to the DR1 I just can't see it diving as fast as a Spad. 

Share this post


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

When it comes to the DR1 I just can't see it diving as fast as a Spad. 


No way. But dive speed is a different thing to G force! 

Share this post


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

For example: When dive-testing an undamaged SPAD XIII today, I was able to pull 9G (or just over) out of a dive at 260 km/h. Respawning to get a fresh plane, I ripped my wings at about 8G when trying to pull out of a dive at 270 km/h.

Now, I only have a very base understanding of aerodynamics, but that seems odd to me...? Should higher airspeed limit an aircraft's ability to take on G force? 

 

No, just like the (non-accelerated) stall is always reached at the same indicated airspeed (actually calibrated airspeed) regardless of true airspeed (which is in function of density altitude), the maximum load on a wing doesn't change with airspeed.

 

What does change in function of airspeed, is how easily the wing arrives at such a load, or if it can arrive at such a load at all.

 

Look at the following V-g diagrams (for a modern jet aircraft): 

 

 

flight-strength-diagram-atcm-51-3-figure

significance-of-the-v-n-diagram-atcm-51-

 

 

From this article: http://www.aviationchief.com/operating-flight-strength-v-g--v-n-diagrams.html

 

As you can see, it's downright impossible to pull 2g at 100 knots in the example above, as the wing stalls before you can reach said load.

 

There's a speed around 250 knots where you can first reach the 7.5g positive limit labeled as Point A.

 

"The airspeed at this point is the minimum airspeed at which the limit load factor can be developed aerodynamically. Any airspeed greater than point A provides a positive lift capability sufficient to damage the airplane; any airspeed less than point A does not provide positive lift capability sufficient to cause damage from excessive flight loads. The usual term given to speed at point A is the "maneuver speed," since consideration of subsonic aerodynamics would predict minimum usable turn radius to occur at this condition. The maneuver speed is a valuable reference point since an airplane operating below this point cannot produce a damaging positive flight load. Any combination of maneuver and gust cannot create damage due to excess airload when the airplane is below the maneuver speed."

 

What the article calls "maneuver speed" is typically taught as VA or manoeuvring speed, which simply means that at speeds in excess of VA, full deflection of any flight control surface could result in damage to the aircraft structure.

 

 

 

Now these diagrams are always about constant loads being applied in perfect conditions. In reality there are more forces at work on the wings. If you deflect a control surface fast enough with high enough airspeed, and you don't break it or overstress it in the process, the wing will at least momentarily reach a critical angle with the relative wind (the direction from which air is moving around the wing). This is Newton's first law of motion: objects in motion tend to want to remain along the same path unless acted upon by a force. As you pull 10g in less than one second, you are in essence entering an accelerated stall. Stall means separation of the airflow, means turbulence, means uneven loads, means you can throw the diagram in the bin.

 

I'm still not convinced that the average person can physically pull 10g in less than a second through their stick, but this is highly dependent on plane construction. In modern aerobatic machines or jet fighters it's certainly possible. In WWI biplanes there are likely several limiting factors in terms of construction. It's the so-called "stick force gradient" or "stick force per g".

 

 

Yoros0h.jpg

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't think the g-count is relevant in this case because we don't know if the models are up to real life numbers. I think Chill mentioned that the in-game g-count was off, that his plane bled a lot of energy in turns. I think we should evaluate the game with ingame references. If the planes are making high g-maneuvers, like the 10-Gs Bender was pulling, we should assume the ingame flight model supports it. So if real planes would not fold with a few bullets, the ingame planes should not fold with a few bullets as well. That's the only relation we can make I think.

 

If people start to compare our g-loads with real life g-loads, we probably would need to ask for new flight models and atmospheric simulations as well. Go full board with everything. Otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges and fantasizing with 'real data'.

 

And what about the shaking? Today* I had to go back to base in almost every sortie because with just a few hits my plane started to shake. Could that be revised as well? Do people like this feature? As far as I know, the shaking thing would come from intense drag or visible structural damage that would affect the balance or airflow. Unless every hit is causing fuselage and wing fractures, the plane is not supposed to shake at all. Perhaps if you get lots of hits in the wing you could have some model for ripped fabric and some drag, but not with a few hits. This is an old feature from ROF that was always criticized if I'm not mistaken. Could you guys get onboard on this or some people like to be shaking in the cockpit? As far as it goes for me, it makes me return to base, especially with this wing shredding thing still going on.

 

The Fokker D7 also sounds off if we are talking about all planes made of wood.

 

*I'm here just for testing for the time being.

 

 

-------

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

No way. But dive speed is a different thing to G force! 

Yes but, The DR1 is not really a good plane to represent what we're looking for, The wings are far shorter than what any of the other ww1 planes had. We all know you can break a longer stick much easier than a short one. That's why the DR1 was some much stronger than every thing else and didn't need wires. 

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...