Cmptohocah

Any documentation supporting this? Would be great to find answer to my questions I guess. I am very skeptical in taking "just trust me on this one" answers, not because of lack of trust or anything, but simply 'cause I prefer "teach me how to fish" approach.

This guy is pulling 11G for quite some seconds and at a quite a rapid rate I would say, so I guess my pilot tolerance goes out the window. Although he does GLOC at the 3rd spike at 12G.

Actually the Flanker's manual shows a load-TAS diagram and at 1000m altitude with 2xR-27 & 2xR-73 and 50% fuel the line reaches 10G and judging by the line shape it might as well go over 11G, but the same diagram clearly has a 8G limit also. Anyway the point here is not about the Flanker or the Eagle per se. It could be any aircraft and it just so happens that I do have the manuals and graphs for the Flanker/Fulcrum. I actually couldn't care less the specifics of the particular fighter-jet type, but I do care great deal about consistency and facts. So far no one has came up with a single fact about the Eagles excessive G tolerance (again not talking about the structure but the pilot) except hypothesizing that it's right the way it is. I actually never questioned that the Eagle can pull more than 9G. My question was about the reason why it would pull significantly more G in a shorter amount of time than any other jet (so load rate as opposed to total load), which would allow it to exploit badly modeled GLOC as more G equals greater turn rate. Anyway if the charts and articles are not enough to show you guys that what @FoxAlfa showed in his GIF, seriously defies physics and human physiology I guess there's no point to discuss it any further.

Another article talking about the same thing: https://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1183272/FULLTEXT01.pdf Page #18

From what I found in this article, I will do some more research latter, the higher the onset of G the less time pilot even has to recognize loss of blood pressure to his/her head: https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2759.pdf Page #4 So our Eagle driver should not only be napping at 11+G, but he should not even have cues that he's about to pass out.

E-M diagrams are the fighters limits - they are everything. I know for a fact that Su-27SK's manual has in it an absolute G limit of 8. This is regardless on the flight configuration, speed, altitude, weapons etc. This is a do-not-exceed G limit. So how much G should the Flanker sustain in DCS before something bad happens? 8.1G, 20G, 200G? You get the point. You are personally attacking me now and yet no facts were presented. I say no, because physics and common sense say no. What's your argument or reasoning? Because maybe Eagle has a super hydraulic system? Ok, cool I have the same argument: I think that the Flanker should have double the load rate that of the Eagle 'cause I think its hydraulic system is superior to that of the Eagle. Can I prove it? Most certainly not, just like you can't prove the same for the Eagle. Can't put much valuable info here as I don't have any relevant info on the topic.

I was talking with respect to DCS: all pilots have the same suits and same G tolerances. I am trying not to get into the structural limits debate as we don't really have any valid data to compare, so I focused it solely on the pilot limit. If I understood correctly, and please feel free to correct me, the Eagle pilot does not black out at 12G 'cause the Eagle's rate of load is much higher than any other fighter's. Again, as I said couple posts ago: where's the proof that such a thing exists in the Eagle? That is, why is the Eagle special in this regard? If you look at most modern fighters, all their E-M diagrams are limited by a line that is somewhere around 9G. There is no "time spent" in above region, they are just limited to that specific load and most of the time it's pilot-limited. To wrap it up, there is a bug/exploit and for following reasons: 1. Eagle in DCS should not have any advantage in pulling Gs quicker than any other contemporary fighter, since there is no proof that it should - feel free to convince me otherwise, but fact only please 2. There is a clear bug in G tolerance for the pilot in DCS, since there is a finite amount of time above 9G that the pilot can spend without blacking out regardless of the G load. These two things clearly are wrong Because real life E-M diagrams show a different story , or should I say: "other jets seem to follow the laws of physics and real world performance data."

Doesn't matter. Eagle producing 11+G or {insert aircraft here}, there should be no difference in when the pilot goes out. I think you would be a great politician @GGTharos: "I say apple is green and round and can't be flat", and you reply: "Screwdriver is metal with a plastic grip and its tip is flat." Anyway that's all great, but you failed to explain why would something like this be possible in the Eagle and not in any other modern fighter we have in DCS.

From what I can tell from the animated GIF, highest G that F-15 pulled was in excess of 13G, not to mention that 12Gs were exceeded 3 times.

Just to separate things a bit. G tolerance of the air frame is something I wish not to discuss at the moment, I just mentioned in a context that current max G is pilot related and topped off at 9G, in essence that IS the G-limit. I am pretty sure that all those mentioned fighters F-18, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 etc. have structural limit higher than 9G, but as I said they are limited by the pilot. Please don't put my BFM in the mix, as this is not the topic of discussion. The topic is that you are able to pull well above 9G in the Eagle without blacking out. The general answer was that it's possible 'cause of the Eagle's rate of "load", but since there is no documentation to support this, what are we talking about then? There's no E-M diagram for the Eagle available? Doesn't even matter, 'cause as I mentioned earlier we are mostly pilot-limited at 9G. Argument that the pilot can stay conscious in the Eagle at 11Gs holds absolutely no water, unless someone can provide documentation that the Eagle is able to produce loads at much higher rate than other already mentioned fighters.

I can't imagine this being the case. Imagine everything airborne in the area somehow getting their clocks synchronized. How would that even look like? How would the information be passed around? What if it doesn't reach someone? How can you even verify if it did?

Unless someone can provide "load-time" curve for the Eagle that is different to other modules, this argument goes out the window. It's clear that the max G in DCS for most of the fighters, except Eeagle, is pilot-limited to 9G and since DCS doesn't simulate any sort of failure when exceeding G tolerances this is quite a bug I would say. I mean 11G is 11G. Whether it's produced by the Flanker, Eagle, washing machine or a toaster. Also where would one even get this information about the speed at which the Eagle can produce max G? Is there an "apha-time" diagram available somewhere?

I highly doubt, but again I am not an expert, that it can send position reports as this would mean that verifying which aircraft is friendly depends on the accurate position of both the transponder and the interrogator, which can be questionable. Changing delay also doesn't really make sense as this would mean that all of the transponders/interrogators need to be synced and re-synced. IMHO what makes sense to get the ranging info for the IFF system is the fact that all of the transponders that are friendly need to have same "delay/latency" so that the interrogator can time the response and then calculate distance in order to match it to the radar contact. I could be completely wrong about this also, so it would be great if someone can give more insight. Basically the question I am trying to ask is: if we have two contacts on the radar that are on the same radial from us but at different ranges, how does IFF know which one is friendly and which one is foe?

I always wondered: how does the system match a blimp from the radar with a ping from the transponder to paint a friendly? I mean it can't rely on the timing of the return, so how does it do it?

I feel like a crazy person. Is it me? Would you be able to provide a track @okopanja? I don't have access at the moment to DCS.

My highest was 0.093 for M1.0, but that's probably 'cause I am missing the calculation at M1.2. What did you use for CFD? Just out of curiosity.

Oh wow, I am very surprised how close my simulations are to the ED's at M2.5 and above. For lower values of Mach's number I got much different results.

You are correct. It has to do with lift-to-drag ratio. That's how airplanes that don't have T/W higher than one, get up in the air. For example, if you deploy an air-brake on the F-15 it will still have the same T/W ratio, but it won't fly as fast.

Thrust-to-weight ratios are given for max. weight and installed engines at sea-level altitude, so basically "static thrust". Pretty much all the engines are rated for this condition, as far as I am aware.

I guess the only wayt to test T/W in DCS is to somehow have the airplane in vertical (like a space rocket), at sea-level and with full after-burners on. If it starts climbing, then its T/W is indeed greater than one and the rate of climb would indicate how much it is. Or rather vertical acceleration.

I am not an expert, but you need to remove drag from the equation in order to check T/W ratio. I mean, if you mount MiGs engines on a sphere that is the same weight as the MiG you will have the same T/W but the performance will be different since a sphere has much higher drag coef. than the actual plane.

Ah, you missed the Alamo before the CFD update. Now that was a rocket powered brick. New one feels like a laser, compared to it.

Great video @BlackPixxel!!! Shame that the HDD does not show the target's altitude/speed, so we can compare the 77's performance to DCS.

Could you check what the number 23 represents, please? It should be the target's closure rate, but I could be also wrong.

The video says that "Igla" can track up to 0.1s flare dispense times. 10 flares per second seems about right. Can your AIM-9X track a 5/6G target? If yes, why shouldn't the MANPAD?