F15C with 14G overload?

[Ktulu2]

The 13+ zone only lasted about 0.1s, which if you replayed the track in accelerated OR if tack view has a limited ''recording fps'' it will not show.

[Bushmanni]

Tacview shows you averaged numbers over few seconds as you can't get stable numbers out from DCS. Hence it will not show spikes in G or any other variable.

[Stuge]

From the real Su-27SK Manual:

 

" When the EOS is the primary sensor (Weapon Control Panel selector on Mode OLS), the target angular position is transmited from the EOS to the radar. The radar works in this situation on KBO mode ( Kвази Oбзора ) and the EOS is feed with target information about distance. In the signals panel the indications ЗАХВ ОЛС is lighted and in the HUD the ИЗЛ indication is showed"

 

NOTE:

 

The KBO mode is a subsidiary radar mode that works with very short radar pulses enough to determine target distance in a cooperative mode with the EOS as primary sensor.

 

" At less than 15 Km the radar change from KBO mode to PHП and the EOS is feed with target distance information continuosly."

 

So:

 

I don´t know if this KBO radar mode using very short and discontinuous radar impulses to feed the EOS with target distance information is enough to make a RWR to lit and show radar activity but it´s worth to mention in this discussion.

 

What a great and interesting piece of info, thank you! This shows how the "knee-jerk" reaction of people that this is automatically unrealistic is a very shortsighted view...

[*Rage*]

Guys, wings ripping off when heavy loaded will also kill you or at least force you to bail out. Being killed by the enemy is not the only way to lose in DCS. Because what I see is people arguing that overloading the F-15 wouldn't give any significant kinematic or maneuvering advantage anyway.

 

The actual point is that in an Su-27 you can break your airframe if you stress it past a certain Red line, which is completely absent in the F-15 currently.

 

In a nutshell: all flying objects are subject to the same laws of physics so that heavy F-15 should auto destruct when pulling 14G or whatever amount deemed accurate by the devs, rather than getting away with it.

 

IN a nutshell: It's not some sort of urgent issue.

 

In fact you shouldn't even really be able to pull 14g AFAIK, the highest known/recorded is 12.5 stick-in-the-gut pull.

 

Its also a difference in the 'design philosophy' between different studios. BST PFM is not EDs PFM. Razbams damage model is quite different to LNs. Razbam and LN have made their own missiles quite different to EDs (whether right or wrong). BST engine modelling (take -ve Gs for example) is quite different to LNs or EDs. the list continues and the fidelity gap widens. Like I said.

[FLANKERATOR]

I'd like to see that one day too. Players would quickly stop taking 3 bags and a missile on every hardpoint.

 

This alone would be a game changer.

 

In the mean time these people make great targets. The F-15 FM hits a brick wall pulling 14G and heavy.

 

I concur although It shouldn't keep on flying with total impunity in the first place :) or at least limit the amount of G one could pull when heavy loaded using a Cat selector (not sure if there is one in the Eagle).

[Ktulu2]

There's no G limit in the F-15...hence the ''pulling 14G issue''. I do doubt you'd get many kills that way winchester, G-limit on 3 bagger still is 9G I think.

[GGTharos]

This alone would be a game changer

 

No, they wouldn't stop, no, it wouldn't really change anything. There's a constant lack of understanding as to the WHY, too :)

 

I concur although It shouldn't keep on flying with total impunity in the first place :) or at least limit the amount of G one could pull when heavy loaded using a Cat selector (not sure if there is one in the Eagle).

 

No, there isn't. The g pulled is limited only by the ability of the hydraulics to deflect the horizontal stabs.

[FLANKERATOR]

No, they wouldn't stop, no, it wouldn't really change anything. There's a constant lack of understanding as to the WHY, too :)

 

No, there isn't. The g pulled is limited only by the ability of the hydraulics to deflect the horizontal stabs.

 

Dear GG, I think I will refrain from replying to you as I honestly think it's useless. I've really got used to your kind of replies, it has always the same taste (I know better and whatever you say is irrelevant kind of answers). No hard feelings though.

[GGTharos]

It's easy to get personal; I could've said you're all just 'flankerwhining' (to be clear, nothing to do with your nick)

 

It really isn't hard to see why people wouldn't change their habits. F-15s were always meant to fly with a missile on every hardpoint - you're not going to see this change, ever. The weight of the missiles isn't enough to make a huge difference.

People who take three tanks will still take three tanks ... they just might learn to drop them before a turning fight this time, and that's all there is to it.

 

And no, there are no limiters on F-15's, which is knowledge you already have because you have read all the discussions on the subject, I'm sure - besides, all kinds of information is really easily available on this subject. What's not quite as available is the actual amount of Gs that can be pulled physically, but we have that figure as well: 12.5g for several seconds, full stick deflection.

So, wings coming off is one issue, reaching 14g is another issue. :)

Edited July 19, 2016 by GGTharos

[blkspade]

Dear GG, I think I will refrain from replying to you as I honestly think it's useless. I've really got used to your kind of replies, it has always the same taste (I know better and whatever you say is irrelevant kind of answers). No hard feelings though.

 

He's not really wrong here though. Eagle drivers take 3 bags for 1 of 2(3) reasons. They either intend to loiter, or to stay in AB as long as possible and thus emptying them pretty quickly. Some probably do it with zero logic behind it and just don't know any better. The first 2 atleast have a plan/intent to drop them as needed. Changing how they react under load is as such inconsequntial to the pilots descision making process. If the bags flew off the pylons under high load, you'd be doing us Eagle drivers a huge favor.

[Bushmanni]

Although we know from real world incident they will take the wings with them.

[GGTharos]

Yep, those bolts are pretty strong and I imagine enough weight would be applied before they sheared off the wing to take the wing with them.

[*Rage*]

Which is the point of this thread. At present you can never shear the wings of an F15. It's only when (if) it's modelled that most people will realise what's been missing.

[winchesterdelta1]

This alone would be a game changer.

 

I do not agree

We just fly a little slower, pull less G's and defend a tiny bit more early. And stay within the limit. We just adapt within the first day. Like a lot of us did with the Flanker. And i'm not even flying the Flanker that much.

 

 

 

There's no G limit in the F-15...hence the ''pulling 14G issue''. I do doubt you'd get many kills that way winchester, G-limit on 3 bagger still is 9G I think.

 

Where you talking to me? Cause i think i did not react on this post yet. Or do you mean the term "winchester". Just if you are talking to me.. I never fly with 3 fuel tanks in the first place. And if i do i never go high and fast with it.

Edited July 19, 2016 by winchesterdelta1

[pr1malr8ge]

From the real Su-27SK Manual:

 

" When the EOS is the primary sensor (Weapon Control Panel selector on Mode OLS), the target angular position is transmited from the EOS to the radar. The radar works in this situation on KBO mode ( Kвази Oбзора ) and the EOS is feed with target information about distance. In the signals panel the indications ЗАХВ ОЛС is lighted and in the HUD the ИЗЛ indication is showed"

 

NOTE:

 

The KBO mode is a subsidiary radar mode that works with very short radar pulses enough to determine target distance in a cooperative mode with the EOS as primary sensor.

 

" At less than 15 Km the radar change from KBO mode to PHП and the EOS is feed with target distance information continuosly."

 

So:

 

I don´t know if this KBO radar mode using very short and discontinuous radar impulses to feed the EOS with target distance information is enough to make a RWR to lit and show radar activity but it´s worth to mention in this discussion.

 

What a great and interesting piece of info, thank you! This shows how the "knee-jerk" reaction of people that this is automatically unrealistic is a very shortsighted view...

 

RF Theory does not change. It's not a knee-jerk reaction when a system that is designed to pickup RF energy of a certain spectrum is not registering what it's designed to pick up. Regardless of "short" duration or not in the relm of what we are talking about a nano second is still a "SPIKE" of focused high energy transmitted on to the illuminated airframe. If the illuminating aircraft can pickup the return then the illuminated aircraft which will be bombarded with far more energy then the receiving antenna gets It's safe to assume there is an issue.

 

Its also a difference in the 'design philosophy' between different studios. BST PFM is not EDs PFM. Razbams damage model is quite different to LNs. Razbam and LN have made their own missiles quite different to EDs (whether right or wrong). BST engine modelling (take -ve Gs for example) is quite different to LNs or EDs. the list continues and the fidelity gap widens. Like I said.

 

Currently we are not talking about missiles, those are COMPLETELY different subject and lumping them into fidelity of the flight models of the two aircraft in general isn't what this discussion is about. While I cannot dispute the fact that the f15 hitting 14g's is not an issue, how ever doesn't seem you guys were complaining about the flanker being able to hit 40g before this fix? Wanna know why not? because you could control the nose it gave an incomprehensible edge that needed to be corrected. Unfortunately for the f15 hitting 14g there is no nose authority and no significant advantage being able to hit those Gloading thus in the broader scope of things needing fixed it is not high on the list.

To keep saying the fidelity gap is widening is frankly absurd.

Edited July 20, 2016 by pr1malr8ge

[GGTharos]

Actually I can see how the radar being operated in a simple ranging mode might not be picked up by the RWR - it isn't about RWR sensitivity or anything, it's just the waveform. It might just not conform to anything that can be usefully interpreted. Normal search/STT pulse trains are relatively complex. Just a theory - OTOH, it's also easy to see how it could be picked up. IN the end it's up to your intel.

[pr1malr8ge]

Actually I can see how the radar being operated in a simple ranging mode might not be picked up by the RWR - it isn't about RWR sensitivity or anything, it's just the waveform. It might just not conform to anything that can be usefully interpreted. Normal search/STT pulse trains are relatively complex. Just a theory - OTOH, it's also easy to see how it could be picked up. IN the end it's up to your intel.

 

RWR is designed to pickup a range of wavelengths. In any sense a ranging mode it's still going to spike well above the noise floor and should be able to be relatively triangulated and placed on the RWR as a U.

[GGTharos]

Or it could be rejected as a spurious contact.

[SinusoidDelta]

Is there any mention that KBO is capable of IFF? The excerpt from the manual says it only provides range information.

[Esac_mirmidon]

The manual doesn´t make any mention about KBO and IFF so maybe this mode can´t do it. Maybe is only distance.

 

Or maybe yes. XDDD

[GGTharos]

The IFF equipment may be separate from the radar, but it just may not be integrated with the EOS (ie. you need to activate radar for IFF to function, regardless of mode).

[Esac_mirmidon]

Yes, but i´m talking about the cooperative modes in the Su-27 when Radar or EOS is the primary sensor but working with the other as secondary.

 

In this case EOS as primary and Radar as secondary in KBO mode. Althought in my oppinion i think the KBO mode is only for determine range accurately at longer distance where the laser range finder can´t do that, so no IFF.

 

But it´s only a guess.

[Frostie]

While I cannot dispute the fact that the f15 hitting 14g's is not an issue, how ever doesn't seem you guys were complaining about the flanker being able to hit 40g before this fix? Wanna know why not? because you could control the nose it gave an incomprehensible edge that needed to be corrected. Unfortunately for the f15 hitting 14g there is no nose authority and no significant advantage being able to hit those Gloading thus in the broader scope of things needing fixed it is not high on the list.

To keep saying the fidelity gap is widening is frankly absurd.

 

Probably because unlike the F-15 FM the Flanker FM is in Beta. The notion that the Flanker could pull 40G in a typical merge and that making huge G turns was common practice is wrong, the choice to switch ASC to achieve these undesirables is not standard practice. This was more a showcase or high speed missile evasion nonsense, basically not the actions of a normal virtual pilot. If the ASC was used with a heavy payload it could put you in an uncontrollable spin. Basically ASC equalled death for many, getting to grips with the trouble of neg G and ending on your back were more at the fore front of peoples concerns.

 

When in a typical merge the ASC would allow you to pull 14G without issue and even more at the initial high speed turn, to say this switching ASC at the initial turn was a standard Flanker pilots procedure is a bit of a stretch, it might have become so if let to live but typically amongst many was deemed unrealistic and not something to bother with. As it is now to be able to pull 12+G you need to be very light or face destruction.

[Demongornot]

This topic remind me this video :

[ame]

[/ame]

[OverStratos]

Or it could be rejected as a spurious contact.

 

This, most of the time.

 

Is there any mention that KBO is capable of IFF?

 

No, it can´t. (I edited this, I was thinking in another thing while writing):D

 

The IFF equipment may be separate from the radar

 

Yes, it´s a different antenna, but you need the radar screen active to see it of course.

Edited July 21, 2016 by OverStratos