Mistang

The f 15 CAS has a limiter. This was already mentioned.

I'm not arguing with you. It's fine.

Ok sure, "you're wrong", good reply as any.

So we're just going to ignore the glove vanes thing I guess. the very forces which destroy the plane would weaken the g gauge so that isn't reliable.

That's different because the eagle simply has a limiter. Anyway whatever I appreciate the effort but I still don't get why it would say the glove vanes allow 7.5g.

The g curve is basically flat regardless of speed.

Wikipedia implies they also limited g. but we're attacking sources at this point. my only question is did the tomcat ever hit 8g in real life? Was okie flying an A model when he made that claim and did he think it would matter?

Yes I mean hidden limiters like glove vanes.

I dunno, Wikipedia seems to contradict that. We have only two instances of cats ever going over 9g and both are probably A models which would compressor stall.

Here's a similar thing from the tomcat Wikipedia. Two triangular shaped retractable surfaces, called glove vanes, were originally mounted in the forward part of the wing glove, and could be automatically extended by the flight control system at high Mach numbers. They were used to generate additional lift (force) ahead of the aircraft's center of gravity, thus helping to compensate for mach tuck at supersonic speeds. Automatically deployed at above Mach 1.4, they allowed the F-14 to pull 7.5 g at Mach 2 and could be manually extended with wings swept full aft. They were later disabled, however, owing to their additional weight and complexity so it straight up implies a g limiter of 7.5 which was later reduced. and yes it's different with modern aircraft that have known, hard coded g limits (the tomcat did too it was just a aerodynamic one).

Yes, good graph, it simply gives the 6.5 number. it would be strange for an engineer to care about lifecycle because that should be set operationally by the navy. It's like a car designer telling you how to drive. It doesn't work that way, you decide what load and speed to carry your car.

That graph seems to avoid giving g or turn rate. the f110 has the same dry thrust, the entire difference is inlets. every plane has hidden g limiters. I will leave the thread and let you disagree because I don't think you've adequately addressed this point.

The f110 did not fix compressor stalls. They simply limited the inlet geometry. youve discussed this lots but never with an engineer.

What about the hidden g limiter? Also the g gauge is complicated and unreliable it shouldn't be taken as evidence it just seems odd a plane known for compressor stalls has such great turn rate.

I'm not disagreeing with your data, I'm literally taking your argument to it's conclusion. 9g at 50k is like 7g at 55k. We're in agreement here I'm just doing math. And as for the claim of no g limiter- it indirectly does because the variable geometry inlet will slow the plane at unstable conditions. the A model has no limiter it simply compressor stalls.

I've never seen those charts, I've only seen the actual real world performance which was 6-7g with any kind of realistic load. if the tomcat is completely stripped, in test situation to find the absolute maximum g not carrying radar or aux systems or anything I can see it being more.

Who said it was 9g? The charts show 6.5. The tomcat g gauge only goes to ten so anything more isn't even verifiable. The test aircraft wasn't carrying anything most likely. So 9g clean is like 6g in terms of weight carrying Phoenix. Obviously a lighter aircraft will pull more g without breaking.

Even so turning 7g sustained just doesn't happen in real life for tomcat. the lifecycle limitation argument is unlikely because you're supposed to train in realistic conditions.

I can't find any example of a tomcat going above 7g, and even that was for a few seconds. the 13g tomcat was probably trashed and that doesn't happen in dcs. the su 27 does not pull that many g, it's able to cobra easily and the tomcat can't.

The structural limit of the f 14 is 6.5g per the charts posted. The dcs f 14 is even more a beast than real life. Im a cat person, I don't care, but it is definitely exaggerated. A real f 14 would never go above 6g. And even if pilots say otherwise it's all muscle memory and reflex to them, they don't refute the test data, they are just giving their simplification. Everyone who designed the f14 is dead so we'll never speak to an actual engineer.

I'm pretty sure they already know. Technically the evidence was already in that thread. otherwise just close the topic.

The image is from reddit. the dcs numbers are from other posters like https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/253409-turn-rate-has-tanked-with-new-update/page/3/ note that hummingbirds own graph shows a 6.5g structural limit yet he is demanding 7 or 8gs loaded with phoenix.

Ah you win.

Heat blur was actually criticized for the turn rate being low but it's actually high. in real life a 30 ton tomcat can barely take off. In dcs it flies fine. heres a chart by the way. Which itself seems high.

There's a few other specific issues. f 14 spin is way too easy to escape. In real life you lose thousands of feet of altitude and the recommended procedure is to eject. The "Tokyo drift" behavior of many planes seems unrealistic and I'm sure air shows would feature that if it existed. Ground effect and other complex surface behaviors seem under modeled. but I'm going to be banned for whining anyway. This is not a criticism it's just a feature the old Jane's and micro prose sims had to varying degrees. one thing I do like is being able to script microbursts and other ways to mess with the player using wind.