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

[Schmidtfire]

Joe "Hoser" Satrapa once pulled 12G's in the Tomcat during training. Putting his RIO in the hospital. After inspection there was no damage to the airframe.

Don't know about the Eagle, but is it totally out of the question that it would survive a 14G manoeuvre?

[IASGATG]

Joe "Hoser" Satrapa once pulled 12G's in the Tomcat during training. Putting his RIO in the hospital. After inspection there was no damage to the airframe.

Don't know about the Eagle, but is it totally out of the question that it would survive a 14G manoeuvre?

 

 

 

A completely clean, low fuel F-14 is a bit different to a loaded with bags F-15.

[JunMcKill]

Joe "Hoser" Satrapa once pulled 12G's in the Tomcat during training. Putting his RIO in the hospital. After inspection there was no damage to the airframe.

Don't know about the Eagle, but is it totally out of the question that it would survive a 14G manoeuvre?

 

It's not only to pull the 12G, but pull it with full bags and weapons, the weight attached to the wings, is another factor to take in account in any stress calculation.

[Sweep]

It's not only to pull the 12G, but pull it with full bags and weapons, the weight attached to the wings, is another factor to take in account in any stress calculation.

 

F-15A tried a high G (IIRC, 9, don't hold me to that) maneuver with 3 fueled bags and broke apart a long time ago. Edit: This was documented in the thread from last year. AFAIK it was something SinusoidDelta dug out of the internet (that guy and his documents.....). :)

 

The C is stronger, but bad things should happen if you act like a dumb-you-know-what with the stick. Loaded 14g barrel rolls at 500ft and 620kts with 3 bags should kill you IMO.

 

You know what would be hilarious? If we could chop our wings off with overstress and fly around with body lift. I've done that before from gun/missile hits before the hydraulics DM update! :D

Edited March 29, 2017 by Sweep

[GGTharos]

Oh dang, noted :D

 

I take personal offense at this statement.

:)

[GGTharos]

There are a few theories:

 

* In the transsonic region you actually have multiple types of airflow which can be structured in ways that cause higher stresses on the airframe

* Transitioning from transsonic to sonic (or the other way) rapidly may prevent the CAS scheduler from correctly moving the stabs in time to prevent you from going into over-g due to changing airflow characteristics while maintaining the same stab deflection.

 

 

Or all or none of the a above. Just putting stuff out there :)

 

Would anyone happen to know why the G limit goes down to 7.33 in that particular region of the flight envelope? Some piece of the airplane getting stressed more than usual?

[GGTharos]

12g for how long? Was it the 12g that caused the injury, or the sudden pull regardless of g?

 

Joe "Hoser" Satrapa once pulled 12G's in the Tomcat during training. Putting his RIO in the hospital. After inspection there was no damage to the airframe.

Don't know about the Eagle, but is it totally out of the question that it would survive a 14G manoeuvre?

[Schmidtfire]

The incident is in my Tomcat book , told by Hoser himself.

 

"Hawk Smith jumped me good once, over at Yuma. He was in one of those early TOPGUN T-38's. All of a sudden it's "Guns on Hoser." At "guns" I yanked that poor Tomcat into a break that topped out at 12Gs. My RIO Bill "Hillbilly" Hill, had his head down a bit, and it wound up around his ankles. If there had been a control stick in the back it would have killed him. Grumman checked that bird over when we recovered. Not a hair out of place. What a cast-iron machine."

[*Rage*]

That isn't my point. I already know the airframe should break up at 14g. In the video presented, there's a spike to ~15g for a fraction of a second. My point is that this had no significant bearing on the fight at all.

 

So, I agree the FM needs fixing ... I disagree that it's causing some huge exploit train that's costing you k/d :D

 

Hmmm...

 

Lets keep it simple.

 

Merge at 500-550 kts indicated depending on your weight.

 

Pull as much G as possible straight up into a loop with full afterburner. U know the entry speed was correct when u almost blackout during first 180 deg of turn.

 

 

From our resident chuck norris of the skies in the Your fav tactics against Su-27 in a merge

 

The peak G here is ~12-14G.

[captain_dalan]

1. That is the reason why I would prefer a improvement to G forces effects so they start earlier and lasts longer and are visually more realistic than just adding vignette in black or red. The hypoxia effect is already a nice addition, and similar nice looking would be needed.

 

2. Same way the G forces should start affecting the virtual pilot head far more so trackIR and VR users cant look around at all so easily. Pulling max G and turning head without efforts is very gamewise thing and puts no requirement to learn tactics and see them through.

 

3.The same thing would come to many other things like ie. HOTAS benefit that when pulling G you cant so easily operate switches and knobs or buttons but really are more tied to the HOTAS or such.

 

 

4. For experienced pilots a higher G load is trained thing. And it would as well improve the need to have the virtual pilots roster in servers and computer where after death all experience is reseted. So in time pilots would gain experience and get higher G load capabilities and so on get better to fly. It would put players to try survive more and not challenge every enemy without hesitation.

 

 

5. You wouldn't pull 14.8G and shoot the target as you wouldn't likely see anything clearly for a while after that.

 

1. Agreed!

 

2. Fully agreed!

 

3. Not sure what you meant by this. If you meant that all birds should be flown exclusively by clicking buttons and flipping switches inside the virtual cockpit (which would be more difficult under g-forces) then that would fall more into the "flying the cockpit" then "flying the plane" category, and i think i would dislike that..... badly. When i drive my car or bike, i don't look around finding the controls i need. I know where they are and what they do. I just reach out for them and that's it. If i had a full extractable cockpit at home, i might follow suit for my flight sims. But i don't. So looking around the pit to jettison the fuel tanks, or the 6b station......nah, just not for me.

 

4. I don't share your enthusiasm. I mean, i agree with you. It would be a nice feature if our virtual selves gained experience and became better at spotting stuff, resisting g-lock, and gaining better hand eye coordination, but implementing such features in a MP environment, would IMO even further fragment the community. The better would become even better and the worse would lag more and more behind. You will effectively pose entry barriers for new players. You could put up match making or something similar to that, but as i said, that would fragment the community. And there aren't all that many of us out there.

 

5. Amen to that brother! :thumbup:

 

The peak G here is ~12-14G.

 

Is it? I haven't done it in an Eagle. If you are on verge of blacking out, isn't that more like 8-9 for a full 180?

In the Tomcat i perform a similar move at 450-500 entry speed, pulling for 8 or so g. It gets me on the verge of blacking out, but not completely.

Edited March 29, 2017 by captain_dalan

[Sweep]

From our resident chuck norris of the skies in the Your fav tactics against Su-27 in a merge

 

The peak G here is ~12-14G.

 

Rage if you go to 12-14G from there you will GLOC. As much G as possible probably means without blacking out wouldn't you think? Heck, even pulling 8 or 9 if you aren't warmed up will GLOC you straight uphill.

 

It is highly advisable to fly the aircraft and scenario in question before complaining about them.

 

Just tested this with an Eagle (state 0020/8.5) at 550kts and 1000ft AMSL- If you are warmed up and you pull max aft stick you'll get to 10.5g and about 125 degrees of turn and then GLOC. Quick edit: Tested again, warmed up, state 0020 and 10.0 @ 550-560KCAS/1000ft AMSL - Max stick pull, lift vector straight up, got 10g again. Edit II: Gonna test with lower fuel, like 4 or 6k - I know guys like Stuge like to min-fuel all their fights, after all. :) Edit III: 4k gives you 11.1g and a GLOC after 135 degrees.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Sweep
Edit V: Added quote!

[GGTharos]

1. Agreed!

 

You shouldn't have. He's not presenting anything realistic for modern jet aircraft flown by well trained pilots.

 

2. Fully agreed!

 

You shouldn't have, because:

 

3. Not sure what you meant by this.

 

He means that if you're under g, some of your cockpit switches should just fail to work - thus showing the advantage of HOTAS and automation in a jet over one that doesn't have any, or doesn't have as much.

In other words, say you're pulling 6g ... that Direct Control Switch? Should never be able to flip it :)

 

If i had a full extractable cockpit at home, i might follow suit for my flight sims.

 

... and so that cockpit wouldn't work under g ...

 

4. I don't share your enthusiasm.

 

Yep - this isn't some kind of 'achievement unlocked - 1g tolerance!' game.

 

5. Amen to that brother! :thumbup:

 

Incorrect. Spikes have little effect.

 

Is it? I haven't done it in an Eagle. If you are on verge of blacking out, isn't that more like 8-9 for a full 180?

In the Tomcat i perform a similar move at 450-500 entry speed, pulling for 8 or so g. It gets me on the verge of blacking out, but not completely.

 

... a DCS tomcat? :D

 

In any case, a 180deg turn at 500kts takes the following amount of time IF you keep the g steady:

 

9.0g: 9.3s

12.1g: 6.9s

14.2g: 5.9s

 

The higher the g, the faster the G-LOC. At 9g's you have ~5s available.

 

Here's the funny thing: I just ran two tests, F-15 with 50% fuel, 500kts, 1500 AGL ... with or without warm-up you G-LOC well before reaching 180 deg turn AND g peaks at 10.1 or so.

 

So meh.

[Sweep]

TFW you out ninja Ghost with testing things.

[GGTharos]

On a hunch I repeated the test with a 59000lbs bird (3 bags, missiles, full fuel).

 

Still peaking g at 10.5. At this point the airframe should be destroyed though.

 

So my conclusions:

 

1) 12g+ peaks appear to be achievable with the addition of roll only, and are largely irrelevant ( ... but still incorrect!)

2) The eagle's hydraulic system/horizontal stabs are unable to provide adequate deflection to pull 12.5g ... so we're actually missing g capability

Therefore, to me, the actual issues:

 

1) Something's up with hydraulics - they don't allow you to pull enough g's

2) Something's up with the FM - you shouldn't get more g just because you added roll (IMHO)

3) DM needs to be added to deal with heavy-weight, high-g situations in symmetric AND asymmetric cases

4) OWS needs to acquire programming

5) I'm still going to gun your flanker while holding the stick back and only coming back Code 2

6) Network client g-spike artifacts are largely irrelevant. You need the client's track.

[Fri13]

 

3. Not sure what you meant by this. If you meant that all birds should be flown exclusively by clicking buttons and flipping switches inside the virtual cockpit (which would be more difficult under g-forces) then that would fall more into the "flying the cockpit" then "flying the plane" category, and i think i would dislike that..... badly. When i drive my car or bike, i don't look around finding the controls i need. I know where they are and what they do. I just reach out for them and that's it. If i had a full extractable cockpit at home, i might follow suit for my flight sims. But i don't. So looking around the pit to jettison the fuel tanks, or the 6b station......nah, just not for me.[\quote]

 

I mean that many other than HOTAS bindings gets a lag or gets even disabled to be used when under G forces.

You wouldn't raise left arm so easily to switch from a SARH to IR in MIG-21 when it is on a top left panel while pulling 5-7G.

Flipping radar from standby to On would be very difficult. So either adding a lag or just disallow function before lowering G forces and vision returns.

 

4. I don't share your enthusiasm. I mean, i agree with you. It would be a nice feature if our virtual selves gained experience and became better at spotting stuff, resisting g-lock, and gaining better hand eye coordination, but implementing such features in a MP environment, would IMO even further fragment the community. The better would become even better and the worse would lag more and more behind. You will effectively pose entry barriers for new players. You could put up match making or something similar to that, but as i said, that would fragment the community. And there aren't all that many of us out there.

 

 

There would be multiple settings.

 

1) per server profile in a insta death reset setting. So once you die (not ejected) your "skill" is reseted. This would suggest people to fly more and avoid to be killed as it would reset your gained extra capabilities, a rookie is a dangerous enemy to them as well, but experienced pilots would be fearsome in a dogfight because benefits. But why to risk your experience 1 vs 2 situations if two rookies can kill you? It means more to do decision when to extend and flee and when to try get the benefit give the edge. Meant for a career multiplayer on public server.

 

2) per server profile but not reseting by death (this is what you dislike, i as well) but requires some kind "training" to uphold the skill level as it gets nerfed by time. Meant for a clan servers.

 

3) disabled, so no such thing (probably default)

 

4) A rapid per session one, every kill with a close range missiles will increase experience. Cannon kills even more (ie skill range 0-100 a AIM-120/AIM-7 gives 5 points, AIM-9 shoot down gives 15 points, a cannon 20 points). A death will reset the benefits.

Meant for a 2-3h sessions. Meant for public as clan PVP style gaming. (Or why not a a time flying at higher G forces when enemy missile flying at you? A 3 min flight constantly pulling 7G when enemy missile flying at you would generate max experience, pulling 4.5G would require 6 min and so on).

 

 

But just as an idea to limit the high G force but still award a skilled flying by giving a edge for better (smarter) pilots.

 

Like if player with 0 points starts to lose colors and blurry vision at 3.5G, then a 50 point does it at 5.5G and 100 would do it at 7G at faster rate. A head turn to be slightly easier etc.

 

So a dogfight would more likely mean a serious hit for experienced pilots if dying, but likely can do some shootings easier at first.

This just so that your "death" isnt just "fly back from the base" nor a name on score board.

 

So how many would want to go pull 8-9G if they cant guarantee to get position to kill a enemy? Even experienced pilots would consider other means first.

[Pocket Sized]

2) Something's up with the FM - you shouldn't get more g just because you added roll (IMHO)

 

Ignoring all other factors, roll coupling should cause a pretty significant G increase.

[GGTharos]

I'm not familiar enough with how roll coupling works. Would it occur at those speeds? Or I suppose, maybe I should ask - can you develop enough AoA at that speed/g to roll couple and spike up the g like that?

[Pocket Sized]

Hehe - roll coupling is discussed in great detail in the "Eagle talk" document I linked a few pages ago.

 

TL;DR: it is most prevalent in high speed situations and tends to pull the nose and tail away from the axis of rotation, in this case causing an increase in AoA.

[SinusoidDelta]

On a hunch I repeated the test with a 59000lbs bird (3 bags, missiles, full fuel).

 

Still peaking g at 10.5. At this point the airframe should be destroyed though.

 

So my conclusions:

 

1) 12g+ peaks appear to be achievable with the addition of roll only, and are largely irrelevant ( ... but still incorrect!)

2) The eagle's hydraulic system/horizontal stabs are unable to provide adequate deflection to pull 12.5g ... so we're actually missing g capability

Therefore, to me, the actual issues:

 

1) Something's up with hydraulics - they don't allow you to pull enough g's

2) Something's up with the FM - you shouldn't get more g just because you added roll (IMHO)

3) DM needs to be added to deal with heavy-weight, high-g situations in symmetric AND asymmetric cases

4) OWS needs to acquire programming

5) I'm still going to gun your flanker while holding the stick back and only coming back Code 2

6) Network client g-spike artifacts are largely irrelevant. You need the client's track.

 

1) Amen. :clap:

2) Not sure about that, look on page 47 of Eagle Talk Part 2 regarding pitching moment.

3) Not an easy task but there are some rough guesses as to failure modes but modeling deformation effects such as airframe bending would be very difficult.

[GGTharos]

Ok, I thought it had gone more in depth about the effects on the airframe and test results - it did not. :(

 

Hehe - roll coupling is discussed in great detail in the "Eagle talk" document I linked a few pages ago.

 

TL;DR: it is most prevalent in high speed situations and tends to pull the nose and tail away from the axis of rotation, in this case causing an increase in AoA.

[GGTharos]

For 3), I think we just need 'accumulated damage', much like on the flanker. The more you stress the airframe, the more likely it is to break. That's for symmetrical g's, where you can be running around and over-ging a bird and not care until you exceed a certain weight ... which is probably a much higher weight than its opponents would like :)

 

I imagine that asymmetric over-g is much more difficult to deal with because now you have to really look at damaging components rather than inducing catastrophic failure, and that's just something that I don't think will fly on FC3 birds :/

 

1) Amen. :clap:

2) Not sure about that, look on page 47 of Eagle Talk Part 2 regarding pitching moment.

3) Not an easy task but there are some rough guesses as to failure modes but modeling deformation effects such as airframe bending would be very difficult.

Edited March 30, 2017 by GGTharos

[captain_dalan]

 

1. You shouldn't have. He's not presenting anything realistic for modern jet aircraft flown by well trained pilots.

2. You shouldn't have, because:

He means that if you're under g, some of your cockpit switches should just fail to work - thus showing the advantage of HOTAS and automation in a jet over one that doesn't have any, or doesn't have as much.

In other words, say you're pulling 6g ... that Direct Control Switch? Should never be able to flip it :)

 

... and so that cockpit wouldn't work under g ...

 

3.... a DCS tomcat? :D

 

In any case, a 180deg turn at 500kts takes the following amount of time IF you keep the g steady:

 

9.0g: 9.3s

12.1g: 6.9s

14.2g: 5.9s

 

The higher the g, the faster the G-LOC. At 9g's you have ~5s available.

1. I know what you're getting at, and the system almost all sims use today is good at providing decent and equal playing field. But i'm always up for experimenting with something new. Like in that episode of "Dogfights", i think it was "The last Gunfighter", when that guy (forgot his name, it was a long time ago) had accumulated so much fatigue in his arms from all the hard turns, his capillaries started to pop? I would like having something like that simulated.

 

2. I haven't made up my mind on that subject yet. In some cases his arguments make sense. Like turning your head around freely in high g turns, or reaching up knobs and switches above your head and shoulders. It's not something easily simulated though, even with people with first hand experience to act as advisors.

 

3. Nah, not yet.....can't wait for it! But in another sim that has an adequate F-14. No matter, i'll try it in the F-15 tonight, and see if the g-tolerances are similar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I mean that many other than HOTAS bindings gets a lag or gets even disabled to be used when under G forces.

You wouldn't raise left arm so easily to switch from a SARH to IR in MIG-21 when it is on a top left panel while pulling 5-7G.

Flipping radar from standby to On would be very difficult. So either adding a lag or just disallow function before lowering G forces and vision returns.

 

 

 

2. There would be multiple settings.

<snip>

I think what you are trying to implement is something that would give (or force) the virtual pilots a survival instinct. Something that most MP (and even SP) players don't have. After all there is no penalty for crushing your plane in the ground, except for maybe a bit of a bruised ego and some role playing. And i like that aspect of it, but i just don't see it working in practice.

 

For 3), I think we just need 'accumulated damage', much like on the flanker. The more you stress the airframe, the more likely it is to break.

That is a good idea as well.

[JunMcKill]

For 3), I think we just need 'accumulated damage', much like on the flanker. The more you stress the airframe, the more likely it is to break. That's for symmetrical g's, where you can be running around and over-ging a bird and not care until you exceed a certain weight ... which is probably a much higher weight than its opponents would like :)

 

I imagine that asymmetric over-g is much more difficult to deal with because now you have to really look at damaging components rather than inducing catastrophic failure, and that's just something that I don't think will fly on FC3 birds :/

 

Agree with you that DCS needs to implement the 'accumulated damage' to all PFM and EFM models, at least until you change slot, or repair the aircraft.

 

Usually in the official Tournaments, we try to keep things like RL, it's one life, is forbidden to change aircraft slot unless you have a windows crash or internet fail, if you have damage and return to base, you need to repáir the aircraft, not change slot, etc. With acumulated damage, pilots will not exploit their aircraft beyond real limits with no consecuences

Edited March 30, 2017 by JunMcKill

[Frostie]

[

 

There would be multiple settings.

 

1) per server profile in a insta death reset setting. So once you die (not ejected) your "skill" is reseted. This would suggest people to fly more and avoid to be killed as it would reset your gained extra capabilities, a rookie is a dangerous enemy to them as well, but experienced pilots would be fearsome in a dogfight because benefits. But why to risk your experience 1 vs 2 situations if two rookies can kill you? It means more to do decision when to extend and flee and when to try get the benefit give the edge. Meant for a career multiplayer on public server.

 

2) per server profile but not reseting by death (this is what you dislike, i as well) but requires some kind "training" to uphold the skill level as it gets nerfed by time. Meant for a clan servers.

 

3) disabled, so no such thing (probably default)

 

4) A rapid per session one, every kill with a close range missiles will increase experience. Cannon kills even more (ie skill range 0-100 a AIM-120/AIM-7 gives 5 points, AIM-9 shoot down gives 15 points, a cannon 20 points). A death will reset the benefits.

Meant for a 2-3h sessions. Meant for public as clan PVP style gaming. (Or why not a a time flying at higher G forces when enemy missile flying at you? A 3 min flight constantly pulling 7G when enemy missile flying at you would generate max experience, pulling 4.5G would require 6 min and so on).

 

 

But just as an idea to limit the high G force but still award a skilled flying by giving a edge for better (smarter) pilots.

 

Like if player with 0 points starts to lose colors and blurry vision at 3.5G, then a 50 point does it at 5.5G and 100 would do it at 7G at faster rate. A head turn to be slightly easier etc.

 

So a dogfight would more likely mean a serious hit for experienced pilots if dying, but likely can do some shootings easier at first.

This just so that your "death" isnt just "fly back from the base" nor a name on score board.

 

So how many would want to go pull 8-9G if they cant guarantee to get position to kill a enemy? Even experienced pilots would consider other means first.

Just sounds to me like an even greater reason other than k/d to spam all actives then rtb.

I'd rather servers keep moving away from the solo mentality and concentrate more on team work. Having a legendary, epic, monster k/d is boring.

[Fri13]

Just sounds to me like an even greater reason other than k/d to spam all actives then rtb.

I'd rather servers keep moving away from the solo mentality and concentrate more on team work. Having a legendary, epic, monster k/d is boring.

Just set bases to have a limited aircrafts and missiles and then have a roster of the K/M (Kill per Missile ratio) where badly flying pilots gets penalties....

 

Same for all other sort things like over stressed airframes etc.

 

Similar as that ejected pilots dont get that pilot to fly before rescue helicopter has rescued and brought pilot back. So a "same account" to have a two virtual pilots but otherwise no flying if not being careful.

 

It would be the HC simulation server...

 

Did you take off or land without permission? Penalties.... Did you shoot a friendly? Penalties...

 

A ruined aircraft is bad in combat.... Better to come home without accomplished mission than without aircraft...