F-15 still pulling 14G with two bags and no damage

[JunMcKill]

In the last Red Flag I have been watching several combats with F-15s and I repeat what I posted months before, I really think it's impossible to make a turn in a F-15C with a peak of 14.2Gs with both wing bags and keep them attached to the structure, even if they are empty! Watch the twitch video at 2:52 how SF_Razer pulled 14.8Gs to shot down another F-15

Edited March 27, 2017 by JunMcKill

[Falcon_S]

Agree... on that forces must happens some structural damage. if not immediately then second or third time but DCS F15C can do that infinitely many times without concern for some structural damage.

 

I hope that will be changed ASAP.

[Fri13]

In the last Red Flag I have been watching several combats with F-15s and I repeat what I posted months before, I really think it's impossible to make a turn in a F-15C with a peak of 14.2Gs with both wing bags and keep them attached to the structure, even if they are empty! Watch the twitch video at 2:52 how SF_Razer pulled 14.8Gs to shot down another F-15

Even if the airframe would withstand that... Pilot likely would die.

 

I so want to get the DCS to simulate the G forces better, starting to fade colors and blur vision at 4-5G and then start doing it faster and sooner longer you have done it in linear time, as it would build up faster and sooner.

 

This would put a end to stupid air quakes and pilots would be required to watch the G forces more carefully and avoid doing much without reasons.

 

Then someone pulling nearly 15G would be a death to them.

[Pocket Sized]

I honestly think that we're gonna have to wait until we get a full fidelity F-15C for accurate overstress damage.

 

FC3 simply isn't in depth enough for the task. It's not as simple as just making the wings rip off, because that doesn't happen in real life, barring very* extreme circumstances.

 

*Full load of internal + external fuel, low altitude, cold and dense air, high subsonic speed, and full aft stick were enough to cause structural failure IRL.

[Pocket Sized]

starting to fade colors and blur vision at 4-5G

What even is G suit

 

Then someone pulling nearly 15G would be a death to them.

 

While I agree that the current GLOC model could use improvement, especially involving the effects of rapid G onset as opposed to gradual, how could somebody kill themselves via over G if they can't pull on the stick after blacking out? It's like trying to kill yourself by holding your breath too long.

[*Rage*]

18Gs all day long with 3 bags and full load in DCS F15:)

[Fri13]

What even is G suit

 

 

 

While I agree that the current GLOC model could use improvement, especially involving the effects of rapid G onset as opposed to gradual, how could somebody kill themselves via over G if they can't pull on the stick after blacking out? It's like trying to kill yourself by holding your breath too long.

Blackout will kill you if plane doesn't automatically level you and anyways enemy gets you as you are a flying duck...

 

And even when you survive from a blood loss from brains you are long time confused.

[*Rage*]

I honestly think that we're gonna have to wait until we get a full fidelity F-15C for accurate overstress damage.

 

FC3 simply isn't in depth enough for the task.

 

It's possible for Su27. Why not for F15?

[Fri13]

It's possible for Su27. Why not for F15?

Does Su-27 even have a structural damages that stacks, or does wings just snap?

 

 

I could think that you first would hear a noises and get bent wings etc before just snapping.

[JunMcKill]

At least the damage model needs to be rectified in some areas, for example the more easier first, like detach the bags from the wings etc, and later, to fix the structural damage by time. Means, that if you pull in the same flight too many Gs several times, the wings will have a cumulative damage that will compromise them later.

[probad]

you guys wouldnt know what an accurate overstress model looks like if it hit you in the face

[Pocket Sized]

Blackout will kill you if plane doesn't automatically level you and anyways enemy gets you as you are a flying duck...

 

And even when you survive from a blood loss from brains you are long time confused.

 

My mistake, I assumed you meant that the forces themselves would kill you. The intricacies of GLOC modeling is far outside my area of research ;)

 

When I began dogfighting I experienced many crashes caused by GLOC, then I learned how to properly manage my energy... I rarely go past 7-8G now.

[Fri13]

you guys wouldnt know what an accurate overstress model looks like if it hit you in the face

That means you do know exactly what such would be... So please educate us...

[probad]

i don't either but i sure as hell am not pretending i do to disguise a personal interest in increasing my chances of winning with a flanker

[Fri13]

i don't either but i sure as hell am not pretending i do to disguise a personal interest in increasing my chances of winning with a flanker

And who is here flying the Flanker?

 

If you don't know, then you can't say that others dont know anything.... As it requires you to know they don't know.... So you need to have the information in first place!

[Pocket Sized]

Both of you chill out, please.

[Fri13]

Both of you chill out, please.

I am chill... i just point out that it doesn't help to say everyone in thread doesn't know anything about structural limits when it can be clearly seen there is clear problem.

[GGTharos]

It also doesn't help to complain about F-15's pulling 14g for two seconds. Yep, it shouldn't be possible - never mind the airframe staying in one piece, it just shouldn't be possible to reach 14g (probably). The highest recorded sustained g on an F-15 is 12.5g, and that airframe had to be scrapped (there have been other 12g incidents where the airframe was returned to service).

 

Given that this portion of the model doesn't seem to be getting addressed the question is ... is it affecting you in ways other than to make you jealous about it right now? :)

The next question is, if it was addressed, will you still be jealous when you find it won't be falling apart like a flanker anyway? :D

Edited March 27, 2017 by GGTharos

[Cik]

>sure everything about our model is wrong including the airframe surviving and the flight model allowing it to happen

>but i'll come to this thread and troll anyway

 

thanks GG always appreciate your visits

[Sweep]

>sure everything about our model is wrong including the airframe surviving and the flight model allowing it to happen

>but i'll come to this thread and troll anyway

 

thanks GG always appreciate your visits

 

>This isn't 4chan

>Poster types like this

>But without greentext

 

(seriousness below)

 

There is a very good chance that the Eagle cannot pull 14g IRL due to the hydraulics system simply being unable to overcome the pressure on the elevators at higher airspeeds.

 

Fix the hydraulic system and you might not need an airframe disintegration model, that's the idea there.

 

The other thing here is that too many people play a game and not a simulator - I see people having yaw induced roll offs and departures at transsonic speeds too often, for example. That's where the "18g capable" meme comes from; bad flying. You deserve to break your jet and die at that point, sure, but why don't you do the devs a favor and not fly in such a stupid way to begin with?

 

All of that said, vEagle drivers want a damage model update too. I think many would love a proper hydro model in all respects and an OWS allowable G indication that wasn't static 9.0. The last one would deter a lot of overstress incidents IMO.

[Cik]

>implying this hasn't been a quote function for like a billion fuggin years since like ancient history

they were writing > on caveman walls get with the program sweep

 

anyway whatever man i just don't like GG "paid to troll" tharos comes on the forums and basically tells someone with legitimate concerns about a flight model he is at least partially responsible for to screw off. i'd suggest an alternative:

 

maybe he can tell us "ED is working on it" or "ED is not working on it" or, if the OP's concerns are illegitimate (admittedly they are not) he can say "you are wrong about X thing and this is why"

 

or simply not post at all.

 

which isn't what he does. he has a history of taunting people: see any thread about R27 where he will inevitably come in to piss people off and then after about 20 pages grudgingly admit that missile modelling is completely screwed across the board.

 

just like this thread, and i'm sure the next 5 calling attention to some totally busted aspect of the sim.

[karambiatos]

It also doesn't help to complain about F-15's pulling 14g for two seconds. Yep, it shouldn't be possible - never mind the airframe staying in one piece, it just shouldn't be possible to reach 14g (probably). The highest recorded sustained g on an F-15 is 12.5g, and that airframe had to be scrapped (there have been other 12g incidents where the airframe was returned to service).

 

Given that this portion of the model doesn't seem to be getting addressed the question is ... is it affecting you in ways other than to make you jealous about it right now? :)

The next question is, if it was addressed, will you still be jealous when you find it won't be falling apart like a flanker anyway? :D

 

There was an instance where an F-15 made a 5G turn, and the nose fell off.

Using your logic of circumstantial evidence (and most of this forums) all F-15s should fall apart at 5G

[GGTharos]

3g turn, and the reason is well known. There's an entire report about it but that isn't even needed here, the relevant details of what happened are quite public and discussed on these very forums as well.

 

The number of over-g's is also known. There are studies written about this since the USAF was concerned.

 

There was an instance where an F-15 made a 5G turn, and the nose fell off.

Using your logic of circumstantial evidence (and most of this forums) all F-15s should fall apart at 5G

Edited March 27, 2017 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

anyway whatever man i just don't like GG "paid to troll" tharos comes on the forums and basically tells someone with legitimate concerns about a flight model he is at least partially responsible for to screw off. i'd suggest an alternative:

 

I'd suggest an alternative for you, too, but I think your correction is obvious.

 

maybe he can tell us "ED is working on it" or "ED is not working on it"

 

Maybe I can't.

 

or, if the OP's concerns are illegitimate (admittedly they are not) he can say "you are wrong about X thing and this is why"

 

But I didn't say that.

 

or simply not post at all.

 

Or you could not post at all.

 

just like this thread, and i'm sure the next 5 calling attention to some totally busted aspect of the sim.

 

Or you could explain how it really affects you, and why it should be a priority. There are plenty of issues with the flight sim. Is this a huge priority or is it just complaining because flankers are so fragile? Again, what will this actually fix for you?

[pr1malr8ge]

>implying this hasn't been a quote function for like a billion fuggin years since like ancient history

they were writing > on caveman walls get with the program sweep

 

anyway whatever man i just don't like GG "paid to troll" tharos comes on the forums and basically tells someone with legitimate concerns about a flight model he is at least partially responsible for to screw off. i'd suggest an alternative:

 

maybe he can tell us "ED is working on it" or "ED is not working on it" or, if the OP's concerns are illegitimate (admittedly they are not) he can say "you are wrong about X thing and this is why"

 

or simply not post at all.

 

which isn't what he does. he has a history of taunting people: see any thread about R27 where he will inevitably come in to piss people off and then after about 20 pages grudgingly admit that missile modelling is completely screwed across the board.

 

just like this thread, and i'm sure the next 5 calling attention to some totally busted aspect of the sim.

 

Here is my $.02, It wasn't an issue for the SU guys at the time that they were pulling 20+G with out a care in the world. When that was rectified with a legitimate airframe destruction model, then it was nothing but cries and whines about how the f15c doesn't have a damage model. The point that GG brought up is that there isn't a need for a damage model, but just a limit on what the airframe can actually do. Since as GG mentioned as well as Sweep. The stabs cannot generate enough force to induce instantaneous catastrophic loss of the airframe like that of the SU27. While no one is arguing against a fix for the problem it should not be of the same solution to that of the su27 pfm. In that it will still draw the RU lovers in droves whining that their aircraft breaks up yet the f15c does not. The RU lovers will not be happy until they see f15c wings rip off like their beloved SU27 does even though its unrealistic for the f15c to have that happen.

 

As far as GG coming in and "Taunting" people The RU lovers have their own Trolls who taunt, as there is one confirmed RULover troll who posted in this very same thread.