190's rip off wings easily

[Widewing]

Kolibri may have a valid argument.

I tested several fighters last night to see if I could pull off the wings. I was unable to damage any test aircraft except for the Dora.

At 475 mph, briefly pulling 8g to 9g snaps off the left wing. This was a transient g loading, not sustained. I verified the duration via film and stop watch. The entire g excursion above 1g lasted 0.32 seconds. None of the following suffered a failure at the same g and speed, or even at higher speeds, despite being exposed to 8g-9g for for more than one second.

P-51D
P-47D-25
190A-5
F4U-1A
Ta 152H
SpitVIII



My regards,

Widewing

[Xasthur]

Wow, thanks Widewing.

[Kweassa]

HTC home page Planes&Vehicles:

Operating Instructions

Max Permitted Airspeed- 500 MPH
Max Airspeed Gear Extended- 175 MPH
Max G Loading- +8/-4
Max Airspeed Flaps- 175 MPH

 The instructions are for the Fw190A-8, but the Dora had the same wing structure as the A8, so it'd be safe to assume the max permitted Gs would be more or less equal.

 If the Fw190 is indeed failing at over 8Gs, then either the minimum 'safety line' for the wing has been set too low, or all the other planes are too resistant to G failures.. since for example, the P-51D is also listed with +8G/-4G limitation.

[kennyhayes]

SUCKS

[SteveBailey]

Originally posted by Kolibri
Since last update the 190's are really unstisfactory.

I riped off now 3 times my wings on a 190-D9.

The situation was following:
I was chasing a P51-D with a 190-D9. The pony went for a dive and i followed him. On the deck we were at about 350 mph when the pony flew a hard left flat turn.
 

I'm curious why, if the pony executed a hard left and flat turn at 350, you tried to follow in the first place.  Chances are the pony pulled close to black out which means you'd have to pull a bit harder for lead. If you intended to simply follow him thru the turn you missed an excellent opportunity to gain angles.  A vertical move, even a nice, tight little yoyo, would have given you an E advantage and probably an angles advantage. While you may or may not be right about the 190 wings being too fragile, IMHO you made a bad choice.


Steve

[lagger86]

I can rip the wings off a hellcat when I don't press the right buttons....pulling up with a couple 1k bombs under ya seems to cause some problems...as far as 190's are concerned, I flew two sorties in those things today and will stick to dying in american rides.

[Kolibri]

Many thanks WideWing.

That was a really helpfull reply.

In fact of your results it's excactly what I were asking.

Now what is the answer of HTC?

Are You going to change something?

[Karnak]

Originally posted by lagger86
I can rip the wings off a hellcat when I don't press the right buttons....pulling up with a couple 1k bombs under ya seems to cause some problems...as far as 190's are concerned, I flew two sorties in those things today and will stick to dying in american rides.

That is the cause of every "Spit shedded its wings" event I've read about in WWII.  Pulling up after a dive bomb run in which the bombs failed to detach from the Spitfire.  An extra 1,000lbs hurts.

[Charge]

In 190 F the wing racks probably cause the wingtips to break off, but what is strange is that those 50kg bombs are still with you even if the wing tips have broken off...

***

There are advantages in having a small wing and that was realized even in Bearcat design: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530/pg_1

Basically there is no reason why 190's wing should be more, or as fragile as in other planes. Quite contrary, the wing design was stiff and strong and it enabled the 190 to pull enormous amounts of G if needed.

-C+

[wrag]

Snapped the wing off a 190a8... did a roll, started to climb, pulled back on the stick, wingtip snapped off.

Heard other complaining about 190 wings SEEMING to have become more delicate since last patch?!?!?!?

[Krusty]

More than that....


- Many reports of 190 wings breaking (I haven't flown it much I can't comment)

- Much harder to land! Ground effect seems multiplied many times over, almost impossible to set the plane down now, even with throttle off! Haven't had one landing that didn't bounce 3-4 times since the new patch!

- Gunnery issues? Folks complaining of seeing rounds pass through target without hitting them. I saw 3-5 30mm hit sprites (big fireballs) from my 262 on the outer wingtip of a single B17G, and it never took any damage from it. It was a friggin' good shot, too!

Many odd reports have started happening since the latest update. I think there's some funky code at work.

[Kweassa]

Many odd reports have started happening since the latest update. I think there's some funky code at work.

 Maybe.

 But my bet is on just typical fluctuational whining numbers. People always whine about everything. Sometimes there's more, sometime's there's less.

 Besides, the complaints aren't that rational anyway.

* Only a hamfisted stick thrasher ever gets to break a wing off a 190. It's not as if they're coming off at 4Gs. The threshold is around 8~9Gs, and frankly there's really not a single instance in the MA you'd ever pull that kind of Gs on purpose during combat. Definately no need in A2A combat, and plenty avoidable if divebombings and field attacks are well planned and practiced - instead of those dweebtard Deathstar runs that rush their 190s in a situation where they have to pull up at least 50degrees at 3,000ft altitude while falling at 500mph IAS.

* landing is the same as ever.

* my gunnery actually went up, as abysmal as it is.


 I'd advise anyone to stay away from the paranormals, psychics, and conspiracy theorists of Aces High. Those whiney nutballs are usually the same guys who make up those typical stories of a "phantom Spit16 that is claimed to do a 180turn and pull straight up behind a 109 speeding at 450mph"... and etc etc versions ad nauseaum.

[Kolibri]

@Kweassa

Such postings like yours doesn't help.

Call other peoply whiner just when they talk about a problem is an argument of a fool. Come out of your kindergarden.

Read the posting of widewing and than switch on your brain.

There seems to be a mistake in the data of the 190-D9 and nobody talk about conspiray of HTC.

Post a meassage if you have some informations, some facts.

Nobody cares about your personal meanings.

[Kweassa]

Speak for yourself kol.  All you yourself did was post an anecdotal claim.


 All the other 'problems' have been researched by someone else, or being argued by someone else, doing all the testing for you.

 Basically you started this as a typical whine, with no definitive basis or proof on your claims whatsoever, until Widewing just happened to pass by and actually feel compelled to do some testings for you.

 As if you posted any FACT, right?

[Charge]

"The threshold is around 8~9Gs, and frankly there's really not a single instance in the MA you'd ever pull that kind of Gs on purpose during combat."

It should not be that low. That is recommended maximum continuous loading. As was stated in the article I posted the standard was 12G after which nothing was guaranteed. And the small wing is more durable than a large wing if they have the same amount of metal in them.

* landing is the same as ever. ->Agreed. 190 needs to be landed rather fast or with very small descent rate.

* my gunnery actually went up, as abysmal as it is. -> I have noticed no change except that I have experienced more instances where planes fly through my line of fire without hits. I fail to understand how that is possible if I have 4x20mm and 2x13mm. Would be helpful to prove if I had film on in every fight...

-C+