Su-27. Extreme G-loads... G=?

[IASGATG]

The great irony here is that the F-15 could have been given the same 12.5G hard limit and eagle pilots wouldn't have noticed because we don't pull like that. Flanker pilots on the other hand, well anything that takes the edge away.

 

Moreover if they made the limit say.. 14G, F-15 pilots couldn't even test to see if the same applied to the jet.. Just food for thought.

Edited April 10, 2016 by IASGATG

[Winston60]

But this is FC3. Keep that in mind

 

Cheers.

My point exactly! Then why this sudden "Wings-Off" nonsense? :dunno:

 

I imagine there's only a few handfulls of real pilots in the world that can fly this plane effectively in a real world combat environment, and they have real tactile feedback and human g-force limitations and warnings from the airframe. Now ED is adding their version of quick and hasty "realism" in this case and expecting all of us virtual and recreational pilots to be included in those few handfulls of real world pilots, not to mention we don't have the real world feedback/forces/warnings when we are sitting in front of our simulators and they have not provided any feedback at all in the way of sounds, vibrations or graphics before BOOM - WINGS OFF!

 

This is certainly not why I bought the FC3 pack of planes.

 

Would I buy FC3 now, knowing this new "feature" is so poorly implemented?

Certainly not.

 

Will this fiasco affect my purchase of future aircraft modules?

Absolutely.

 

ED, please fix your implementation of this new feature, make it more real, add some warning sounds, vibrations, shakes, rattles, bent wings and unruly handling before you explode my plane. Equip the FC3 Su-27 with a more sensible overstress damage model and make it conform more to what people expect in a FC3 aircraft. Leave the super hardcore disintegrations to the new releases and fully articulated models. (but please add some sound and visual feedback before you suddenly explode any airplane!) Just because you exceed the specs of an airplane as written in a manual somewhere doesn't mean it will instantly explode every time a parameters is exceeded. This is just a case of a hasty and poor implementation of a new feature using exact theoretical data with no allowance whatsoever for variables.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Winston60

[Esac_mirmidon]

The problem is when people expects did not have anything to do with the real aircraft.

 

You want a plane that flies at +20G without breaking apart?. Or maybe turn at +12G without loosing your head?

 

Play X-Wing.

[dartuil]

In real life from youtube I see pilot suffering G at 6G when in DCS we can pull 8G like aliens!

In F-15C I stay out of 6-7.5G to avoid blackout!

Edited April 10, 2016 by dartuil

[Darkbrotherhood7]

The problem is when people expects did not have anything to do with the real aircraft.

 

You want a plane that flies at +20G without breaking apart?. Or maybe turn at +12G without loosing your head?

 

Play X-Wing.

 

:yes::yes::yes:

[Kuky]

So many hot shots pilots here, I'd like to see all of you fly the Flanker for real and start pulling off so many G's and see how your body handles it. You guys so easily forget that you are sitting very comfortably in a chair at 1G so you have no clue what it would be like for you to fly the real jet the way you fly it on PC. You just wouldn't... if you did, you would most likely either end up being dead, or would very quickly lose your job as a pilot. Real people (pilots) in real jet know how hard it is when pulling G's, so they know not to do those sort of things... you don't, why you think this new feature is unrealistic. If you were flying pulling 20-30G, you don't know how to fly... full stop.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Kuky

[Esac_mirmidon]

I admit that years of bad habits because forgiving FC3 limits and SFM could take time to leave out of us and this new PFM´s and new features like airframe stress, G-Load limits and structural limits also take time to learn and adapt to it.

 

But if all of us want to fly the right way we must learn how to fly INSIDE the flight envelope, and to take care about AoA and G, speed and energy, engine management and flight dynamics. Of course for all FC3 planes but one must be the first. Lets give time to ED to update the rest.

 

Thats all.

[Oceandar]

I think we just need to adjust our habit on happily pull hard too many G. It's just a matter of training and get used to it. Personally I thank ED for this feature.

 

Gam Zeh Ya'avor - King Salomon

[Nerd1000]

Not realistic at all. There's no warning sounds, no wing deformation, no creaking or groaning, just a sudden "off with the wings". Unless ED is trying to get people to avoid buying this module, some change has to be made to bring pre-wing loss warning and bent airframe damage into the game.

There is Betty shouting 'Over G! Over G!' at you to give some warning, at least with English avionics.

[DarkFire]

I'm genuinely not seeing too much of an issue with this update. Even at near 100% fuel with a full A-A weapons load it's still perfectly possibly to slow from cruise speed down to corner speed with a max-ITR turn and then concentrate on STR turning for WVR fighting.

 

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but using the 'slow is smooth, smooth is fast' approach rather than banking & yanking seems to work just fine.

 

I guess there's a reason why in the real flanker it's necessary to throttle way back to expose the direct mode switch cover...

[Winston60]

So many hot shots pilots here, I'd like to see all of you fly the Flanker for real and start pulling off so many G's and see how your body handles it. You guys so easily forget that you are sitting very comfortably in a chair at 1G so you have no clue what it would be like for you to fly the real jet the way you fly it on PC. You just wouldn't... if you did, you would most likely either end up being dead, or would very quickly lose your job as a pilot. Real people (pilots) in real jet know how hard it is when pulling G's, so they know not to do those sort of things... you don't, why you think this new feature is unrealistic. If you were flying pulling 20-30G, you don't know how to fly... full stop.

It's unrealistic because there's no feedback or damage indications before the aircraft just explodes. Why wouldn't you expect to hear some creaking and groaning of the airframe or see the wings bend or the damage model to simulate being bent/damaged? Not every Su-27 would explode at precisely the same instant of exceeding a limit.

[Winston60]

There is Betty shouting 'Over G! Over G!' at you to give some warning, at least with English avionics.

I believe Betty announces her warning at a set G and AoA? It does not take into consideration a/c weight or loadout and Betty's call is very, very conservative. If you stopped/relaxed your maneuver when Betty suggests, you might be in danger of being shotdown by a Cessna with a shotgun.

 

You can also blow a tire when taxiing a heavy aircraft just by braking a bit too hard or too long. At least there's feedback though when you hear the tire blow.

 

I'm not against exploding the aircraft if you want to get silly. Just program in some feedback and some alternative damage to an overstress that's not always instant destruction.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Winston60

[probad]

there is a nice warning thing called the g meter that tells you exactly what is happening to your plane

[RvEYoda]

What was the gross weight?

 

Pretty high fuel loads and full a2a missile loadout.

So I guess it is based on actual forces on the wings..

 

Do we have some graphs showing the real life flanker limits vs payload?

Doesn't the built in limiter have any awareness about the payload?

[mvsgas]

Pretty high fuel loads and full a2a missile loadout.

So I guess it is based on actual forces on the wings..

 

Do we have some graphs showing the real life flanker limits vs payload?

Doesn't the built in limiter have any awareness about the payload?

 

There is this from the SU-27SK manual found online, I know is not the same aircraft but looks close to the same limitations.

 

[ATTACH]138299[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]138300[/ATTACH]

 

Using ED DCS FC manual (page 24) and this SK manual. I get;

23430kg take of weight with R-27R x 2 + R-73x2 and 5270kg of fuel

So that should be max g of 7.2g at < 0.85M, 5.9 at >0.85M to ≤ 1.25M and 6.4g at > 1.25M

Edited April 10, 2016 by mvsgas

[mvsgas]

So we can compare;

First attempt I stared with 5 tons of fuel (set fuel at around 52%) and carried 2x R-27R on station 5 and 6. Also carried 2x R73 on station 1 and 10. Weather was spring at -6C taking off from Mineralnye Vody. Took off at mil power and climbed to 2500 meters. By this time only had 4.5 tons of fuel. Accelerated to mach .7 and turn, was able to reach 10g 3 time without issues. Accelerated to mach .9, and could only do about ~8g with the stick shaker moving the virtual stick in the pit. Now with only 3.5 tons of fuel, I accelerated to mach ~ 1.2 and tried to rip the wing off again but achieved same results as the mach .9 test.

 

Landed, ask for repair, ground crew acknowledged me but got no counter for repair. I assume I had no damaged. Refuel to 6 tons (60%) of fuel and installed 2x R27ER on station 5/6, 2x L005 Sorbtsiya pods on station 1/10 and 2x R73 on station 2/9. This should have allowed 7.1g at < .85 mach. Same take off and climb to 2500 m, accelerated to mach .7 and try to rip the wings off, which came off after 2 second 10g pull.

 

I'm the farthest thing from an expert, but that was cool and I think sound legit! :D

 

I like it. Is it accurate? I don't know. But it's cool. :joystick:

Edited April 10, 2016 by mvsgas

[Esac_mirmidon]

Thanks for using my spanish translated manual mate. Really pleased.

 

I was testing also the new G limit feature and i have never break anything no matter the weight if i limit my G to the manual values. Even there is a considerable margin over the maximum g/weight ratio. So only because pilots fault pulling to much well over the limit you can cause damage, no mention the super human one could be to sustain more than 9 G to the point of breaking the plane.

 

You want warnings before? Use the AoA-G indicator. Is there for something.

 

But i find legit to ask for more stress sounds, vibrations of the airframe when pulling to much. In CoD there is a nice stress sound effect but you know they are made of wood and thin metal.

[marcoacv]

I believe we all want the greatest possible realism. The point of the matter was that the additional ED S for Pugachev's Cobra and people learned to fly with stopped ASC and thus achieve high Gs. For the simple reason that the human being has a great desire to win. Previously many here remember the Pugachev's Cobra could only be executed by pressing the K key and below 500km / h. Then add a limiting speed to disengage the ASC. Another point discussed here is likely before the aircraft break it will notify "OVER G - OVER G", some kind of sound in the structure twisting and anything else before breaking into pieces. But is that before all this we are not forgetting that most likely the pilot would already be in blackout. It is very easy to maintain high Gs and the pilot did not pass out. I would like to know the opinion of all.

[BIGNEWY]

Guys I have deleted some disrespectful posts and some that have quoted them.

 

Obviously passions are running high in this thread, please be mindful of the forum rules before posting or warnings will get handed out.

[Ironhand]

I believe we all want the greatest possible realism. The point of the matter was that the additional ED S for Pugachev's Cobra and people learned to fly with stopped ASC and thus achieve high Gs. For the simple reason that the human being has a great desire to win. Previously many here remember the Pugachev's Cobra could only be executed by pressing the K key and below 500km / h. Then add a limiting speed to disengage the ASC. Another point discussed here is likely before the aircraft break it will notify "OVER G - OVER G", some kind of sound in the structure twisting and anything else before breaking into pieces. But is that before all this we are not forgetting that most likely the pilot would already be in blackout. It is very easy to maintain high Gs and the pilot did not pass out. I would like to know the opinion of all.

From my viewpoint, things now are much better than they were before the update. If you plan to hit the "S" key or wheel brake, you now need to make sure you know what you are doing and have a good understanding of the forces involved. Flying with the FCS engaged, you are not likely to run into any problems. Just be cautious as you approach corner speed, if you plan to disengage the FCS at that point for a higher rated turn. That's where the highest Gs will take place.

 

EDIT: As I mentioned earlier, this is a lot like when this aircraft was given PFM. There are simply some new things to get used to. Among them, if you significantly exceed the operation G limits, there is now stress damage that weakens the airframe. Each high-G turn then adds to the weakening. At some point, since this is simply modeled as the wings coming off, that's the damage you'll see if you make a turn at--more or less--the operational limit or even below. If you don't understand what's going on, it'll be a WTF moment.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Ironhand

[Vitormouraa]

From my viewpoint, things now are much better than they were before the update. If you plan to hit the "S" key or wheel brake, you now need to make sure you know what you are doing and have a good understanding of the forces involved. Flying with the FCS engaged, you are not likely to run into any problems. Just be cautious as you approach corner speed, if you plan to disengage the FCS at that point for a higher rated turn. That's where the highest Gs will take place.

 

I think the same. It's a little bit more realistic than before. But, also, a bit more hardcore. ;)

[Svend_Dellepude]

Thank you ED for ending the era of the 20G Flanker.

Even fully loaded you still have to do an effort and ignore quite a lot of over-G warnings to rip off the wings.

[theropod]

From my viewpoint, things now are much better than they were before the update. If you plan to hit the "S" key or wheel brake, you now need to make sure you know what you are doing and have a good understanding of the forces involved. Flying with the FCS engaged, you are not likely to run into any problems. Just be cautious as you approach corner speed, if you plan to disengage the FCS at that point for a higher rated turn. That's where the highest Gs will take place.

 

EDIT: As I mentioned earlier, this is a lot like when this aircraft was given PFM. There are simply some new things to get used to. Among them, if you significantly exceed the operation G limits, there is now stress damage that weakens the airframe. Each high-G turn then adds to the weakening. At some point, since this is simply modeled as the wings coming off, that's the damage you'll see if you make a turn at--more or less--the operational limit or even below. If you don't understand what's going on, it'll be a WTF moment.

 

+1

 

as we mentioned before that improvement changed everything now.

 

we need to be more carefull before what we intent to do

[Jinks]

Obfuscation:

intransitive verb

: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

 

There are two concurrent threads regarding the new damage model for flanker filling up now 13 pages and filled with a lot of discussion that's going all over the place. Reasonable questions are being lost by extraneous points in all directions. Effectively devolving the conversation to a F15 vs Su27 fanboy war. Using "real world" examples of why an F15 would never have it's wings come off then failing to provide examples of a Su-27 flying apart with a fully functional computer makes no sense. Complaining that the F15 is easy mode / "arcarde" is equally as pointless.

 

That discussion has no bearing on whether or not this was implemented in the best way for the Su27. There should be an official thread for that somewhere else to be used as a cathartic. There is some bad information being argued and I'd like to point out a couple.

 

Pro-tip: Don't press S key, wings stay attached all by themselves.

 

No. You do not need to over-ride the ACS or AoA to have the wings rip off. This has been explained and is easily reproducable. Go over 800km/h roll inverted while pulling.

 

The great irony here is that the F-15 could have been given the same 12.5G hard limit and eagle pilots wouldn't have noticed because we don't pull like that. Flanker pilots on the other hand, well anything that takes the edge away.

 

It's already been established that you do not need to exceed 12g's to have the wings rip off. While a lot of the complaints about this update have been rather whiney - the true irony here is the many posts trying to have a constructive conversation on whether or not this has been implemented correctly or in the best way - not whether it should be there at all.

 

---

 

Many of us (flanker pilots) totally understand and agree that you shouldn't be able to manually over-ride the computer without penalty.

 

Wings ripping of without warning and without over-riding the computer is a valid concern. There have been many posts implying that this is hard to do. It is not difficult at all as pointed out and easily reproducible.

 

The question has been posed whether or not this was intended and if it is actually correct. To some degree it was answered.

 

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.

 

If the first shot at the new model is an accurate representation of real limitations of the computer then so be it. There's nothing wrong with wanting to get that right.

 

The other valid point made by a few people is that there is zero warning. It just happens instantly - which is likely not the best behavior.

 

Telling someone real pilots don't pitch while rolling doesn't address that.

 

If the simulation is monitoring flight data for a certain condition to be met... Perhaps there is a way to let the dumb pilots - sitting in his chair at 1g - know he's about to rip the wings off when approaching that condition. Or perhaps it makes sense to allow for an instant of being over that condition, some type of audio cue (creaking), or anything that helps reduce the confusion.

 

Questioning how it works or making suggestions does not mean one disagrees with the existence of the new damage model.

[DarkFire]

It's worth noting that metal parts, when exposed to repeated strain above their designed load limit, are then very vulnerable to subsequent plastic failure at well below the same design limit. This is entirely physically accurate. Reference:

 

The Behaviour of Metals Subjected to Repeated Stresses

H. J. Gough and D. Hanson

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Vol. 104, No. 727 (Nov. 1, 1923), pp. 538-565

Published by: Royal Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/94221

 

The introduction of overload failure of the airframe will require us all to adapt our piloting, but then the Su-27 (and other Russian aircraft) have never been designed with care-free handling built in. It's always been the responsibility of the pilot to fly within safe limits. The design philosophy seems to have been not to place artificial limits on pilot input to enable a knowledgeable and skilled pilot to go beyond what would otherwise be possible.