SinusoidDelta

I was referencing the document I posted earlier. Its only a sample of 43 pilots but it give some insight to those of us who don't know eagle drivers personally. Only one of the 43 pulled more than 7G above mach 1.5. They didn't experience failures per say but malfunction warnings. The whole document is worth reading. I've posted it 5-6 times now. Especially the 800 knot test point at 3,000 ft, which in one of your previous posts claimed control surfaces would be ripping off.

There was also the F-15C that disintegrated at 8-900 knots due to a vertical stab failure. Nearly half of the pilots exceeding mach 1.5 experienced some system malfunction.

Slide 25 gives a little pilot survey: [ame=http://flighttestsafety.org/images/stories/workshop/2014/break%20the%20store.pdf]http://flighttestsafety.org/images/stories/workshop/2014/break%20the%20store.pdf[/ame] IMO in the FC3 F-15, there is no concern for air frame integrity, rudder control malfunctions, inadequate oxygen supply over 50 kft and I'm sure many other RL concerns during testing. No one ever flies that high in MP though :megalol:

It certainly is, comparing the DCS F-15C and -1 App. B charts it is surprisingly accurate. Test it out for yourself:D

Which makes sense IMHO. Pure logitudinal maneuvering distributes load across the wings spanwise. Simulataneously rolling the aircraft, the distribution is no longer symetrical and the wing producing the most lift will experience the highest load. Net wing load would be concentrated in to point loads at the edge of the flaperon. If the load exceeds structural limit, I think it's reasonable that the wing failure would occur at the edge of the flaperon i.e. the outer 1/3 of the wing. Should that failure mode always result? No. I highly doubt stress/strain or the multitude of other material strength properties are being calculated dynamically.

I posted that earlier: Translated straight from the real flight manual for reference. Note the limitations through the transonic region (0.85 < M ≤1.25)

I agree. I'm not sure why it's even implemented in its current state. It serves no purpose.

No, I do not have lens effect or DoF enabled. My specs are: Samsung SE790C 34" Curved Ultrawide 21:9 / 3440x1440 i5 3570k 16GB DDR3 GTX 970 SSC 250GB SSD

It would be awesome to model some type of OWS like in the F-15: https://www.google.com/patents/US4302745

Probad, what are you talking about? Why the condescension?

Upload it to Dropbox

The issue is you can move your eyeballs in DCS, you have to move your head. Set up a snap view so you can quickly glance at the VSD. I'm not sure what you're on about Svend and GG, unless you're talking IRL 20nm or just trying to poke fun.

It is supposed to drive the control surfaces to their neutral position and drive the pitch trim actuator one degree aft.

Inspection for micro fractures would be used to verify a lack of fatigue damage. Once a structural member has yielded, it's compromised.

Sure, I can post one later once I'm off work.

Who knows what kind of wizardry is going on in the FM. There are some clues in mods/aircraft/flamingcliffs/.... It's locked away in a dll. Unless YoYo spills the beans, we can only guess. Perhaps someone savvy could do some reverse engineering / detective work with export scripts but we don't even have export ability beyond the old LOGet stuff. All the EDFM stuff is top secret.

i've had this issue since 1.5 was released and I've seen very few comments about it. my monitor is a Samsung 34 inch curved ultra wide with a native res of 3440x1440. at this resolution there is some kind of white noise or over saturation. the further away from the camera view point the more the haze accumulates. anything in the distance regardless of whether time of year for time of day is obscured. Spotting aircraft is next to impossible as the haze engulfs everything and contrast is not discernible. There is no indelible horizon. What is going on? Why didn't this exist in 1.2? Why does it get better when I force a lower resolution?

A roll bar? How's that going to help in a frontal offset crash? The H3 actually recieved a "poor" rating in side and frontal offset crash tests. Everything changes in a dynamic impact. This I know very well, I do it for a living. Edit: And a car that doesn't "crumple" in a crash will kill you.

There was another instance of an F-15 disintegrating when it exceeded 780 kts at 24,000ft. See my post here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2646887&postcount=34

The F-15 is not FBW. It is hydraulically boosted, augment controls. The f-15 has good static stability characterstics (without augmentation or CAS). The Flanker does not exhibit steady static stability (s key pressed) It may be counter intuitive but that is an advantage in the sense that it allows for much more maneuvarability when under control of the FLCS. The down side is the topic of this discussion essentially. You can overload the jet much easier.

Need to know what the conditions were when the wing failed to make a guess. Draw a free body diagram of an aircraft performing an aileron roll. The aileron forces are in opposite directions, one force acting up and one acting down. The summation of all moments acting on the airframe in a roll are the aerodynamic moments, change in drag force (not really relevant in this case), and mass moment of inertia multiplied by roll rate. So short answer, yes its possible and becomes more possible with higher mass, higher roll rate, higher speeds, lower altitudes, etc. Considering you were fully loaded, a fast roll command induces a large asymmetric load. I don't have the knowledge to say whether the the shear force would be large enough to snap off the wing of a flanker. Someone more intelligent (and with very specific details of the flanker's design limitations) would have to chime in...

Because the effective range of an AIM-7M is 3 miles and the so called APG-63 radar is atrocious, restricted weapons is suicide for the eagle.

I can only imagine whats going down on the russian side of the forum right now. And I wouldn't say kills are easy in either jet. Multiplayer bum-rush has created that perception.

CAS only commands < 20 degrees aoa. Beyond that it only dampens pitch. Without the dampening I suppose pitch could be commanded somewhat instantaneously. I assume a big factor why the eagle can't rip its wings off is due to its favorable static stability characteristics, unlike the flanker.

Translated straight from the real СУ-27СК flight manual for reference. Note the limitations through near the transonic region (0.85 < M ≤1.25)