jackmckay

maybe you should see this video at 7s next: ${1} what do you see? fuel mist large enough to hide a wing? hmm? maybe you should stop believing in false stories and turn logic on? i know you can do better than personal discredit attempts. try reading f18abc manual part about dumping fuel. ( )

its theory of flight actually. the science behind joystick moves. thing that makes people fast travel large distances - safe. in essence: error of dcs flight/damage model.

- jet fuel can't be atomized as jet fuel is actually carbon based long organic molecule: Flashpoint 38degC Autoignition 220degC Openair burn temperature 1030degC inside engine <800 degC You can't atomize molecule: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atomization but I can live with that name, even it has misleading meaning. Conclusion: Jet fuel is very ignitable in fuel/air mixture combo.. now get out of engine. Aluminium series 2 melting point is.....??? NATOPS FA18ABC Flight manual says: NEVER IGNITE AFTERBURNER WHILE DAMPING FUEL. STRUCTURAL DAMAGE MAY OCCUR. - Airfoil lift curve has similar positively proportional drag curve: Missing one wing means that: -there is intense asymmetric lift -similar asymmetric drag -every deflected control surface means more (asymmetric) drag -CG is shifted away from center line(no wing/fuel mass) -aerodynamic center is shifted extensively away from center line and missing wing - airstream car rip apart remaining structure -there's intensive roll/yaw momentum -shutting down starboard engine is logical move to counter extensive roll/yaw momentum - never happened -not seeing extent of damage by two pairs of healthy eyes is least said soap opera line -landing on two tires at that speed is impossible without undercarriage/tire damage - never happened Have you seen f111 dumping fuel and igniting it by afterburner? Have you seen mig29 entangled in flames after midair collision fuel spray entering engine path? If some here didn't please check first post images. Personal discredit efforts - ricochet. :megalol: Guys get real, read Roskam, learn theory of flight.. :)

If youre structural or aeronautican engineer i can reconsider weight of your claims. Well are you? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesnt have to be related but did you noticed that taxiways got little bit wider after that post as also the shelters got moved away than before? Now is litlle bit harder to get stuck then before. Check yt vieos named: 'the worst place to be a pilot' - where do they land on? This is also personal discredit try, but just richosette bullet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Demistifying Eagle damage model Mig 21 goes down after single aim9 shot 90% of the times. Eagle takes 3 r60s 50% of the time, other it takes 2xr60. Never single shoot. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Demistifying Eagle damage model Nothing but funny? Can you say that while onboard of an airliner, cruiser ship or a car thats been designed by actual engineer? Is that funny? Funny how your life is tailored by engineers that takes care for rest to stay alive and safe? That the gratitude for all hard work and effort? All that is funny to some. Next time use horseride or foot for traveling great distances. To me as an engineer is funny level of naiveness of manny people that can't counter any claim state from post start with any hard argument. Core: if pilot kicked afterburner, plane would lit in fireball 4.5 seconds later - rock solid state. That whole story is undoubtly fake. One emotionaly damaged user can only battle this post by adding tags on author itself but having no real argument to logically counter any claim of posts itself from initial claims. That's sad. Saddest thing is that ED dm coders got persuaded that this full crippled landing is actually possible further hardening eagle damake model. Such irrational attitude is not acceptible in sim worls, maybe only in fantasy game enviroment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Jet fuel is NOT highly flammable. The vapors are." In fully developed turbulent flow fuel droplets tend to disperse in a mist - its trivial. High speed airflow can only delay full dispersion of fuel. keywords: turbulent eddies, vortex street, multiphase flow phases, droplets dispersion .. study example: http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/jderksen/pages/pbl/aichej61p2618.pdf pictures in post: F111 dumped fuel ignited by afterburner. mig29 midair collision - what happened next? observe fuel (obviously not in liquid phase) ignite after entering afterburner path 4.5 seconds later. fuel/air mixture combustion is stable inside combustion chamber and does not damage internal cambers of engine - because they are designed to do so by default, material used - HS titanium alloys, HS steel alloys, ceramics.. outside of engine close to airframe skin - meltdown, strength weakening - structural failure. Pilot/wingman couldn't see the extent of damage because mist hide complete wing - that's the greatest lie I ever heard. like it was smoking parked and not in high velocity airstream. NASA - one word: Grasshopper (or Falcon 9). Where is NASA now? No more Von Braun and German scientists to make some progress.. it looks they stayed frozen in 60s. I don't take them serious really. That F15 that couldn't stop on runway threshold - tires still in one peace, hmm? no reverse thrust or parachute? IAF one didn't have one wing so he should land with much greater roll angle to maintain direction - port side tire says: wiiiiiii-kaboom-spark-wooshh and then goes roll pirouette.. pilot is in heaven (or hell). PS: I believe that midair could actually happen but with much lesser extent of damage, then ground crew scissored the rest to make repairs easier, and then some idiot said: hey we could make some story, there are few aeronautic engineers in world, most people are idiots, we can sell them that story, and to the enemies too.. rest is history (channel).

History channel actually made case "historical". Can you explain why you find my high speed landing explanation false by describing actions and forces acting on plane in that exact moment? What about XB70 case? Do you see any traces of A4 embedded in F15 wing root?

Let ED believe common sense first, never myths. Documentary on this case is made by HC and not supported by single NASA/MD wind tunnel test nor HPC CFD analysis, even raw calculation or any scientist claims. Nothing, just pilot talk and few pictures, and the rest is history. If one wants to, go step by step over my statements and destroy each one you want by science facts, freely using math. I explained this case's weak points (and there are lot of them) on the most simple way for more people to understand this case. Lets talk about each one posted initially?

Tharos, are you an engineer? PS: I believe more to NACA then NASA. Lets stick to this case first.

Yes, structural engineer in marine design office. FEA and CFD are my fields.

First I urge everyone to leave emotions away from this topic. This thread aims for engineer’s point of view using extensive knowledge of physics and aerodynamics as tools of explanation. Let me be clear, my standpoint around Eagle design and performance is described as pure appreciation of engineer masterpiece and respect given to its design team that made hell of a job by creating Eagle as is. Some Eagle users pushed its performance margin a little bit too far. That "famous" IAF Eagle one wing landing is, based from my knowledge, experience and common sense, pure fiction in act of propaganda. There are many reasons that proved this claim to have good standing ground. Here are some rock-solid facts: -jet fuel is highly flammable liquid that is specially designed to maintain stable combustion process in combustion chamber inside jet engine. It is selected for a reason and most important one is rapid flame propagation, or high burn speed that is around 20m/s. By using special technique of slowing down the airstream in combustion chamber, stable combustion is maintained inside chamber but outside of that zone, fuel disperses fast and slows down enough to ignite and burn. -pilot claimed that he was not aware of scale of damage after midair collision as fuel spray was continuously hiding his view. Pilot had a wingman on disposal who was also unable to determine the scale of damage. This is extremely unreal scenario as fuel from exposed tanks cannot form such wide spray zone in high velocity airstream. Damaged tank would empty its content in a matter of seconds regarding scale of damage and starboard opening. -motion of debris and fallen of wing body would very likely act as high velocity impact objects further damaging fuselage and potentially control surfaces aft of the damage zone, respectively starboard rudder fin and ailerons, reducing control surface effectiveness and possibly more hydraulic/electric actuator systems damage that would lead to total unrecoverable dive spin. There is no visible damage on tail control surfaces. -as soon as pilot would engage afterburner, leaking plane would lit in fireball as fumes and spray that would occasionally enter engine exhaust nozzle path, ignite and spread its flame to source - remaining fuel in fuel tanks. This would lead to entangled fireball around airframe that would lead to skin meltdown and rapid damage propagation. That plane would be doomed instantly. -pilot claimed that he was able to maintain level flight without one wing using afterburners. I already explained impact of afterburner heat and flame effect on spraying jet fuel before. Level flight in case of extremely high aerodynamic imbalance due to complete missing wing is absolutely impossible, Plane would have to roll to that remaining wing and match its lift center axis with plane remaining body axis parallel to gravity vector. Focus is on level flight. To this day, no wind tunnel test has been committed to prove this claim to be true, as matter of fact plane manufacturer engineers neglected that possibility as impossible. Logical explanation is that due to high roll momentum that plane would be impossible to balance with remaining control surfaces that had no enough authority to fight asymmetric lift/drag generated by single remaining wing. Claiming this premise true is out of engineer’s scope as there must be a larger portion of wing remaining to counter roll momentum. -pilot claimed that he was able to land safely without one wing. I already explained that plane should be tilted sideways along roll axis and that would mean that high-speed touchdown would be committed on starboard wheel first. Released friction heat amount would be tremendous knowing that landing speed was already high by scale factor of 2. Scale factor of 2 doesn’t mean double centrifugal stress on tire as acceleration force is square product of angular velocity of wheel, but exponential propagation of tensile force inside tire. That high safety margin is uneconomical as all elements of airplane tend in reduction of unnecessary weight. Tires are no exception. This case tire would break apart exposing aluminum rim to runway and highly possible ignition as rubber and aluminum are used as propulsion in SpaceX project rocket engine. Drag generated by broken lit rim would increase already high drag on starboard side of plane that would make it sideslip and roll on missing wing side leading to possible crash and fatality. Tire manufacturer touchdown limit is half of landing speed pilot said to have landed on, further ultimate stress limit would give tire ¾ of that speed life. All above is fatal for tire. Godspeed.

- TF51 is the most difficult plane to land especially on forest meadows or anywhere in countryside, it's a real nightmare as it easily tips and flips over just to explode next in few secs. Never seen so sensitive DM. What you see from above is not what this plane feels under its wheels. - it takes 3xR60M for Mig21 to down an F15. OP I'd say.

Well, it's salad but atleast I can speak and write your language. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, if DCS is Simulator then it should simulate RL, right? Also names of everything in game are real, so warhead blast energy should be real too. Dcs is not acecombat with imaginary rl modified names of items or i'm wrong about that 'simulator' thing? Regarding aim9, it still misses, x has current PK of 0. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

warhead weights roughly: R60 - 3kg R60M - 3.5kg R73 - 7.4kg R27T - 39kg R27R - 39kg K13 - 7.4kg AIM9 variants B/E/J - 4.5kg M/L-9.4kg D/G/H/X - 11kg AIM120 A/B - 22.7kg AIM120 C - 18.1 kg Knocking down Su24 that weights 22T empty vs missile warheads above? And then F15 (12T empty) or Su27 (16T)..etc. Quote: "In total 452 Sidewinders were fired during the Vietnam War, resulting in a kill probability of 0.18"

Tharos, your'e a partybreaker :) Not bothered at all, just contrary. Look, we all know that F15 is OP-ed on damage model, cos we've seen lot of it on MP arena lately. Egg. I like flying Mig21 cos it's hard to fly, fast and it can outurn F15 just enough to fire R60s in it's warm spots and then... comes ED with it's damage logic to help all F15 pilots become heroes of the day. Why don't ED turns that "F15 help mode" off in MP egg. Maybe it's good for newbies to give them a push for fighter jets but at the end of a day we all know its not real. Big missiles rips planes apart, not small as they can only damage plane's systems which then brings the whole plane down under certain conditions. PK ratio depends on many components but odds can not be that high for F15 compared to Su27 as other in its size class. I don't remember last time setting up random failures on ME and that is spot where small missiles hit - random system failures. Bigger missile - more random system failure..etc Also, Aim9 warhead is also way too much OPed as is range too.. yeah, flies almost like 27T, and gravity doesn't work for aim9 too as it doesn't drop into high AoA drag on non-powered ballistic flight phase if tracking powered plane out of range. F15 players know it but are silent as now they can spamram aim9s too. Damn, ED tripple OPed F15. And we've seen RL Aim9 going stupid since Vietnam up to Syria - a lot. So why doesn't ED follows? Besides, there's realism level settings in game too ;) It's up to ED at the end but you Tharos can tell them that Birdstike isn't happy about their high damage resistance for F15 in reference to R60M and rest of arsenal.. I don't want to fire 3xR60 to bring F15 down. That is just too much.. PS: Why do they take live ammo at all? What, wing commander likes to play poker with pilots so the one who looses takes live aim9 on? :D Why don't pilots put some duck tape on that seeker before training mission takeoff. It's taxpayers money anyway.. :music_whistling:

at this point we have damn good evidence that Aim9 is under powered and prone to soviet flares. So if Aim9 cant knock down F15 how come then it can knock down anything larger from first shot? Titanium is titanium. Do we have A-A warhead comparison somewhere?

Check this out: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14890 Q: If that missile is not enough to bring F15 down, what plane can it bring down then if it sticks so nice to soviet flares?

Maybe I can help: https://www.therussophile.org/houthis-hit-saudi-f-15-with-ground-to-air- missile-over-yemens-saada-province-video-3.html/ https://southfront.org/houthis-released-video-showing-moment-when-saudi-led-coalition-f-15-was-hit-by-surfate-to-air-missile/ No story like: F15 landed safely damaged.. bla bla.. spraying fumes.. kicking afterburners to land safely and so on.. Q: So is Eagle that hard as GGT claims? https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/ and https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2017/06/23/how-did-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/ Q: Does this RL story puts shades on effectiveness of all US IR missile PK ratio before X variant?

Dear Tharos, tell me what does this means :"Of course, it seems that recently RL F-15's have proven the eagle's tankiness"? What happened exactly? Shrapnels from rocket warheads are 100% rusted out, or explosive got wet soaked or new improved F15 indeed does have new schrapnel repelling nano-coating? Maybe F15C doesn't have FLCS strategically mounted between exhaust nozzles like old Su27 does so its immune to missile damage and doesn't pitch up that violently on any damage at all? Does that means that Aim9X is also useless now against new soviet flares like one on Su22? Do we have to expect trend following or stick to development timestamp?

Yea, F15 got 2xR60M in the butt but still goes for merged dogfight and max speed rtb. I mean, who's playing with that stuff on ED side anyway? Where is the unified damage model or physics modeling anyway. C'mon guys, fix that. Its going out of control. All this work for what? To have eye-candy and no physics - that's no sim. Were waiting for decent damage model for decades. How long we have to wait for proper one? -1 to ED for damage modeling.

@esac Early Su27 had pilot as sensory instrument for G stress overload. Too bad that all gamers sticks are not FFed or maybe home g-suit would do that kind of immersity level. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is science guys. Maverick talks with better flight dynamics understanding than most guys here. But talking who's daddy is stronger(f15&su27) is way below descent conversation. Anyway its constructors achievement and not the one who are flying it. Airshow performance is competition, tough one, bigger balls kind alike so that means pushing performance margins. If plane sucks there, it will suck anywhere. DCS problem is still in equlity of laws of physics not applied to all becouse of different FMs and there story ends. Why modules dont have tryouts in a first place? @tharos my double chipped 2xgtx760 SLI 4GB is not fully supported aside from 6cored i7, 32GB, SSD and I get 20fps, only all low gets 40fps.. Ugly game then. Off topic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk