G-loads in WW2

"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
*that* much more fragile than modern military craft?


Depends on the aircraft

The Spitfire and Hurricane were just about unbreakable being
able to handle more g than the pilot but the Me-109 was
known to have suffered wing tip and tail spar failures and had real
compressibility issues. One of the results was that despite the
theoretical performance Luftwaffe pilots were often a little
more hesitant about really aggressive manoeuvering than their
RAF opponents.

The early versions of the Hawker Typhoon also had
structural problems with the prototype actually breaking
just aft of the cockpit, fortunately the pilot survived.
Improvements were made but tail failures were always
a problem.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 03:38:51 GMT, Jay Stranahan
wrote:

Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
*that* much more fragile than modern military craft?

Jay, without looking at any references, I recall that British pilots
in primitive G suits were able to pull 9 Gs in the late marks of the
Spitfire. That's a lot, as I understand it. Isn't the rule of thumb
that a fit pilot can withstand 5 Gs?

Some planes were certainly fragile. There were several cases of
Japanese army Hayabusa ("Oscar") pilots shedding their wings in close
combat in SE Asia in 1941-1942. And there were at least two cases
where a P-40 collided with a Hayabusa wing to wing, with the result
that the Hayabusa lost the wing and went down, while the P-40 flew
home.

I don't think they were fragile as a matter of course. The problem was
that all 1930s airplanes were basically designed by guess; the fittest
survived the testing process and were put into service.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Jay Stranahan writes:
Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
*that* much more fragile than modern military craft?


The AMericans and British put a _lot_ of effort into figuring out what
wa happening at these speeds, and finding ways for airplanes to
operate safely in this region. This effort let to proper instructions
for pilots to safely maneuver out of the dangerous regions (No nose up
trim, for example, and no recovery likely above some particular
altitude) and systems to allow safe recovery in the Transonic Zone,
such as the Dive Recovery Flap - a small flap on the underside of teh
wing that produced a nose-up moment when deflected, cancelling out the
nose-down pitching moment of teh airfoil. Note that this wasn't a
Dive Brake. It was too small to have enough drag to slow the airplane
down.

The only aircraft that actualy received this dive recovery flap was
the P47M in what must have been early 1945. It was an impressive
aircraft. The P47N might also have had it.



For some reaon, the Germans, for all their pioneering efforts in high
speed flight, did not investigate compressibility phenomenon on any
sort of a sytematic level, and put little or no effort into working
with existing airplane tyoes. Their solution was to put a Big Red
"Thou Shall Not Exceed Susch-and-So an Airspeed at X Meters Altitude"
in the Pilot's Handbook, and leave it at that.

The jets were supposed to be in service in August 1943. Problems in
engine development caused by having to develop low/zero nickel alloys
delayed them. It would seem pointless developing these sorts of
things if the would be of no use in a fast jet.

in article , Guy Alcala at
wrote on 8/3/04 23:14:

Billy Preston wrote:

"Jay Stranahan" wrote
Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
*that* much more fragile than modern military craft?

Right out of the factory they were excellent aircraft, but the technology
back then couldn't hold a form, and it wasn't uncommon for the 10th
pilot to pull 6 G's and something break. I'm not sure when the strain
maneuver was developed, but I think that WW2 pilots only had a G
suit (dive bombers mostly) and did not strain for added G's, so most
planes were built for more G's than a pilot could produce normally.

Checking the P-51D operational load limit chart (at Zeno's), for design gross
weight of 8,000 lb. the a/c is stressed for +8/-4g. G-suits only came in in
mid-44, and IIRR only for the allies. I don't know if dive bomber pilots got
them; I know allied fighter pilots in the ETO did.

Guy


The first G-suit used in combat was designed by Wilbur R. Frank at the
University of Toronto, Canada in 1942.
Ed