No more above 12G turns

[Jinks]

Ok, you're saying the tolerance is lower while rolling? Still curious if having the wings fly off without over-riding automatic control system or angle of attack limiter..... was an intended behavior of the patch?

 

Kev2Go...

Loading the wings until they fail wouldn't necessarily have to be strictly a result g load would it? You could break the airflow and put incredible strain on the wings without having to change direction all that much. Example: Imagine a brick with a pair of wings flying through the air at high velocity. Pitch the brick up 90degrees suddenly... the wings rip off without the brick changing direction hardly at all.

 

Realism is good but does the flankers ACS really fail at preventing that while rolling?

 

If that's how it is so be it fine, no doubt flanker pilots (myself included) will learn it. But if it's not really accurate it should probably be addressed. "Wings fly off while defending" is kind of not a small thing added to workload of learning pilots.

[*Rage*]

And is the F15 immune to that sort of damage in game?

[Higgeh]

Really pleased to see the flanker is back; will be nice to have competitive dogfights that no longer induce severe optical vomiting :)

[Frostie]

You can get it to 14G by switching Pitch CAS off. The flanker breaks at exactly 12g, slow down the track replay to check that.

I guess thats the difference between PFM and EagleFM.

 

The tolerances of PFM must be so tight no room for any overmodeling only the other way is allowable. Contrast with 3rd party FM which may have more open limits, mixed bag.

[Ironhand]

Addressing the title of this thread, what you get depends on your aircraft's gross weight. At 21,400 kg (one number cited in the manual used for calculation), it takes 15.5 Gs to get to this point:

 

 

Got to admit, this is a great way to confuse your enemy's radar. Look at all those targets!

[holimoli]

Not by any means a definitive answer, but it feels like it's now easier to incur damage to control surfaces or to the wings during low speed collisions, e.g. taxi accidents, failed take off attempts, heavy landings etc.

 

I spent a few hours tonight on the virtual aerobatics server & there were aircraft parts all over the runway at Pashkovsky from people trying to land at 350 Km/h or trying to take off 1m behind other aircraft (I'm looking at you, whoever you were F-15 pilot) :lol:

 

I got hit twice by an AIM9 and survived it with deformed burning right wing.. I could still fly the aircraft.. Never had that before. Atleast not in the Su-27.

[srky]

There's a bit of an annoyance with the Flanker in air start editor missions...I can't get 100% fuel, it spawns with 85%...Anyway, Here're three tacviews of the overload.

 

2 clean with 85% fuel, 1 with 2 R-73s on wingtips, 2 ERs on the centerline, and 2 ERs on the wings.

 

Not sure if they attached right or not...Hmmm....Will edit if needed.

 

Here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v0555u4iaiobk7q/AACNq_a_scg2RSMGNELl1K2-a?dl=0

 

EDIT: BTW, I'm using the wheel brake key to overload.

How would you normaly get high in the air and still have 100% fuel??

 

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

[Nerd1000]

How would you normaly get high in the air and still have 100% fuel??

 

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

Takeoff with drop tank, climb to altitude, jettison drop tank. You are now high in the air with 100% internal fuel (I am aware that the flanker cannot carry drop tanks, but it is possible for other aircraft).

[GGTharos]

Ok, you're saying the tolerance is lower while rolling?

 

Not exactly, but I guess you can think of it this way in practice. The idea is that the aircraft is build to tolerate more longitudinal g's than lateral g's.

 

Still curious if having the wings fly off without over-riding automatic control system or angle of attack limiter..... was an intended behavior of the patch?

 

I don't know - there is a bunch of over-g data available for the eagle if you really dig for it, but as far as the flanker goes, Yo-Yo is the expert.

 

If that's how it is so be it fine, no doubt flanker pilots (myself included) will learn it. But if it's not really accurate it should probably be addressed. "Wings fly off while defending" is kind of not a small thing added to workload of learning pilots.

 

In reality you manipulate one axis at a time. It is disadvantageous to attempt to roll with high AoA in defense - it slows down the roll.

[DarkFire]

In reality you manipulate one axis at a time. It is disadvantageous to attempt to roll with high AoA in defense - it slows down the roll.

 

This. unload - roll - load is nearly always faster. If you watch cockpit video of most MiG-29 or Su-27 pilots on YouTube, watching carefully this is exactly what they do. Airshow routines will be different but they fly with very light fuel loads so structural G limits are much less of a concern.

[JunMcKill]

In my tests the wings break apart with only 4G and 8 of AoA (tacview lost the data --), at 900 km/h, 90% fuel and full CAS, never use the S or W in the flight.

 

In the F-15 with a centerline tank, full CAS, 550 kts, turn with 10.1 Gs and 42 of AoA, nothing happened.

 

Looks like any maneuver with the SU-27 at more than 900 km/h break all the plane appart.

Edited April 9, 2016 by JunMcKill

[*Rage*]

In my tests the wings break apart with only 4G and 8 of AoA (tacview lost the data --), at 900 km/h, 90% fuel and full CAS, never use the S or W in the flight.

 

In the F-15 with a centerline tank, full CAS, 550 kts, turn with 10.1 Gs and 42 of AoA, nothing happened.

 

Looks like any manuever with the SU-27 at more than 850 km/h break all the plane appart.

 

..

 

I guess thats the difference between PFM and EagleFM.

 

The tolerances of PFM must be so tight no room for any overmodeling only the other way is allowable. Contrast with 3rd party FM which may have more open limits, mixed bag.

[JunMcKill]

Anyway, I like the realism in DCS, doesn't matter if the plane capabilities are now reduced in game, and should be applied to all aircrafts.

[ФрогФут]

In my tests the wings break apart with only 4G and 8 of AoA (tacview lost the data --), at 900 km/h, 90% fuel and full CAS, never use the S or W in the flight.

 

In the F-15 with a centerline tank, full CAS, 550 kts, turn with 10.1 Gs and 42 of AoA, nothing happened.

 

Looks like any maneuver with the SU-27 at more than 900 km/h break all the plane appart.

For your fuel the maximum G-load is ~6.4. Above that there is G, where the plane starts to get weaker. So you cannot go 8 G all the way with this fuel load. At some point you may break even at 4G. Currently limiter is set for only 8G limit and does not take fuel and payloads into account.

The thing to remember: G limit = 171 000 kg / GW, but not more, than 9.

Edited April 9, 2016 by ФрогФут

[marcoacv]

I am very disappointed, it became a joke.

[Fri13]

I would like to see some more effects affecting the visuals than now there is, when doing high G maneuvers. As right now so many virtual pilot pulls high G maneuvers without much problems as they are sitting at home.

[ShuRugal]

I would like to see some more effects affecting the visuals than now there is, when doing high G maneuvers. As right now so many virtual pilot pulls high G maneuvers without much problems as they are sitting at home.

 

hmm, maybe they could add an expansion to take the input from a USB scale, and then use that info to apply G-effects to the virtual pilot based on actual load the chair pilot would experience, rather than relying solely on relative load of G-force?

[GGTharos]

They could make non HOTAS switches fail to operate under 4-5g+. Otherwise, the virtual pilots have too little g resistance in the fc3 fast movers IMHO.

[theropod]

Thank you ED!

 

finally we have body structure damage for flanker!

 

no more 50g's:)

 

very big improvement for flanker!

[Fri13]

They could make non HOTAS switches fail to operate under 4-5g+. Otherwise, the virtual pilots have too little g resistance in the fc3 fast movers IMHO.

 

That, but the another would be limiting as well the head turning angles and speed too. Yes, TrackIR users would be required to move head even more and not even changing the TrackIR curves or speed values would change the speed and angles that you feel with high G force.

 

As now pulling high G while your head is squeezed to chair doesn't make sense to allow you look around so easily.

[GGTharos]

I wouldn't change the head turning part because there are already a lot of visual limitations - fov, visible size of aircraft etc. Just my opinion :). Also you get a lot more fov with just moving your eyes than you have available with TIR.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[JunMcKill]

Question: AFAIK, the Su-27 has AoA and Gs limiter, it's true?. Why allows me to make turns above 12G with the load I'm carrying?. However, in the F-15 with three fuel tanks, all AIM-120C and AIM-9M I can load, the fly-by-wire always limit my aircraft to 10-11Gs and never break apart the wings. Any ideas?

[HiJack]

Question: AFAIK, the Su-27 has AoA and Gs limiter, it's true?. Why allows me to make turns above 12G with the load I'm carrying?. However, in the F-15 with three fuel tanks, all AIM-120C and AIM-9M I can load, the fly-by-wire always limit my aircraft to 10-11Gs and never break apart the wings. Any ideas?

F-15 is simply a better product :thumbup:

[GGTharos]

Actually I think in some cases the hydraulics won't even produce enough pressure to let you pull more g's (specifically as very high IAS). I'm not certain if it's really modeled that way, I'd have to ask cofcorpse :)

 

It's possible (Actually likely) that the Su-27 doesn't have this hydraulic pressure issue modeled, but if I'm wrong I'm sure YoYo will correct me :D

 

Question: AFAIK, the Su-27 has AoA and Gs limiter, it's true?. Why allows me to make turns above 12G with the load I'm carrying?. However, in the F-15 with three fuel tanks, all AIM-120C and AIM-9M I can load, the fly-by-wire always limit my aircraft to 10-11Gs and never break apart the wings. Any ideas?

[DarkFire]

Question: AFAIK, the Su-27 has AoA and Gs limiter, it's true?. Why allows me to make turns above 12G with the load I'm carrying?. However, in the F-15 with three fuel tanks, all AIM-120C and AIM-9M I can load, the fly-by-wire always limit my aircraft to 10-11Gs and never break apart the wings. Any ideas?

 

The real Su-27 does have G and AOA limiters but apparently they're only actually programmed to take weight of stores, fuel etc in to account on the most recent versions, e.g. Su-30MKI, Su-35 etc.

 

Russian "generation 4" aircraft have historically been designed this way: they often don't have artificial limits on what the pilot can make the aircraft do, but then expect the pilot to know how to, and be able to, operate within safe limits. The theory is that not having care-free handling enables more experienced pilots to get more performance out of their aircraft than would be the case if they had care-free handling characteristics. The flip side of the coin is that the aircraft are more dangerous for less experienced pilots since it's possible (and relatively easy) to take it way outside the structural safety limits.