G-limiter override characteristics

[BuzzU]

I had never used the G-limit override until testing for this thread. I like to keep it as real as possible. After the posts by Lex, I believe not using it is what the real pilots do. Good enough for me.

 

Exploits are for gamers. Aren't we better than that?

[Hummingbird]

AFAIK assymmetric loads are already modelled, atleast in the F-14 wing failure seems a lot more frequent if you add some roll whilst in a very high G turn.

 

But let's not get any further OT here, the main problem atm is that the FCS isn't properly modelled, which IMO is more important atm as it relates to how the aircraft feels to fly.

[G B]

I had never used the G-limit override until testing for this thread. I like to keep it as real as possible. After the posts by Lex, I believe not using it is what the real pilots do. Good enough for me.

 

Exploits are for gamers. Aren't we better than that?

 

You’re correct. Real pilots do not use it.

[Hummingbird]

When pilots use flaps in the f14 and over G them they should become frozen, maybe asometricly, and the aircraft inadvertently roll or the wing incure damage if it tries to sweep ....

 

This already happens, go over a certain speed and the auxilliary flaps freeze, often asymmetrically. Hence I pretty much never use auxilliary flaps in the cat when dogfighting, I leave everything in automatic. Auxilliary flaps are only to be used below 220 knots.

[Lex Talionis]

Good to hear AS limits are modeled. I would imagine the wings wouldn't be able to sweep either once the flaps were bent/frozen. But i was talking more about the flaps G limit. G limits in general.

 

Anyway.... happy gaming.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Lex Talionis

[Vitormouraa]

Yup.

 

The override is an emergency tool. You basically remove all flight computer safe gards for over G protection.

 

Asking the flight computer for the ability to over G the airframe can be quit disturbing. BFM is violent in the real plane.

 

- hope this helps

 

Very nice posts, Lex. Thanks for sharing them.

 

By the way, have you noticed how the G-Limiter often fails to protect the airplane from exceeding the maximum load factor even when the weight exceeds 32,000 pounds? (according to NATOPS, from my understanding, there is no G-Limiter at or below 32k).

 

Is that actually accurate? i.e you can still over G the aircraft, up to 10G even when the G-Limiter is working 100%.

[G B]

Very nice posts, Lex. Thanks for sharing them.

 

By the way, have you noticed how the G-Limiter often fails to protect the airplane from exceeding the maximum load factor even when the weight exceeds 32,000 pounds? (according to NATOPS, from my understanding, there is no G-Limiter at or below 32k).

 

Is that actually accurate? i.e you can still over G the aircraft, up to 10G even when the G-Limiter is working 100%.

 

No matter the gross weight, you can over G with a fully functioning G limiter. If you snatch on the G very quickly, you can command an excessive G faster than the computer can stop you from doing it.

[Lex Talionis]

.... on set rate is an important consideration as well

 

 

What GB said .

[Sierra99]

To avoid an instant jolt of 2 to 3 extra G's once you cross the regular limit.

 

I think you are misusing the G-limiter. I can’t think of a reason you would disengage the limiter then “ease into” an over gee situation. Usually it’s a case of Betty “INSISTING “ that I “PULL UP, PULL UP!” And me mashing the paddle to avoid “Controlled Flight into Terrain”. (At least when I fly anyway).

Edited May 24, 2019 by Sierra99

[Vitormouraa]

No matter the gross weight, you can over G with a fully functioning G limiter. If you snatch on the G very quickly, you can command an excessive G faster than the computer can stop you from doing it.

 

That's exactly what I thought, reminds me of an interview about the F-111 where a pilot mentioned its analogue computers which couldn't keep up with the rate of acceleration of the F-111. :)

[Hummingbird]

Good to hear AS limits are modeled. I would imagine the wings wouldn't be able to sweep either once the flaps were bent/frozen. But i was talking more about the flaps G limit. G limits in general.

 

Anyway.... happy gaming.

 

Wing sweep function will become stuck if the auxiliary flaps freeze, hence why I would recommend that no'one use the flaps in a dogfight. In the cat it's best just to leave everything in auto.

[Hummingbird]

I think you are misusing the G-limiter. I can’t think of a reason you would disenga e the limited then “ease into” an over gee situation. Usually it’s a case of Betty “INSISTING “ that I “PULL UP, PULL UP!” And me mashing the paddle to avoid “Controlled Flight into Terrain”. (At least when I fly anyway).

 

Plenty of situations actually, esp. one very often reoccuring one where you're following a bogey through a tight sustained turn and you just need that extra little bit of rate to pull lead. It's very frustrating (and obviously dangerous in RL) if the FCS then despite your gentle controls causes a jolt of 2-3 extra G's when all you wanted was perhaps 0.2-0.5 extra G's to gain the needed lead.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Hummingbird

[G B]

You wouldn’t use the paddle switch to squeeze out an extra .2-.5 Gs in real life. It is not used as a BFM tool. It’s only used for “BFM purposes” in DCS, which is not true to the real world.

 

Apologies in advance if I misunderstood, but I thought you were trying to say that getting a little extra G was a real world application of the paddle switch.

[M1Combat]

So you wouldn't use it to get a kill or save your life or your wingman's life?

[G B]

So you wouldn't use it to get a kill or save your life or your wingman's life?

 

I would use it to save my life if I was pointed at the ground and the only way to pull out of it before hitting the ground was to hit the switch. No I would not use it to get the kill in a 1v1 turning fight. That’s not what it’s for.

[Hummingbird]

You wouldn’t use the paddle switch to squeeze out an extra .2-.5 Gs in real life. It is not used as a BFM tool. It’s only used for “BFM purposes” in DCS, which is not true to the real world.

 

Apologies in advance if I misunderstood, but I thought you were trying to say that getting a little extra G was a real world application of the paddle switch.

 

Irrespective of wether or not I am operating the aircraft in a "realistic" fashion the systems still need to function correctly, something they currently are not doing. That is my only concern.

 

In other words I am not trying to claim what the paddle was used for in real life, but likewise I don't think anyone can say for certain that it was only ever used in one type of situation, esp. in a real combat situation and not just during training. For whilst it is important that pilots adhere to operational limits & restrictions, sometimes when more is at stake I can also imagine why such concerns would go right out the window, which is probably where the saying "there are no G limits in real air to air combat" comes from.

 

In short I just want the system to function as the real thing, i.e. with a smooth unnoticable transition if you decide to cross the normal limit.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Hummingbird

[Xoho]

Hummingbird, how do you know how it works if even actual pilots don't use it? Why don't we ask the real world operators how many people they know who have actually used the paddle switch? I wish I had your omniscient powers oh ancient one...

[Hummingbird]

Hummingbird, how do you know how it works if even actual pilots don't use it? Why don't we ask the real world operators how many people they know who have actually used the paddle switch? I wish I had your omniscient powers oh ancient one...

 

:doh:

 

We've already been told how it works. How certain pilots chose to make use of it is of no concern to me, I just want the aircraft to perform as the real thing. If that offends you then I am sorry.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Hummingbird

[victorlima01]

:doh:

 

We've already been told how it works. How certain pilots chose to make use of it is of no concern to me, I just want the aircraft to perform as the real thing. If that offends you then I am sorry.

 

Hummingbird I don't think anyone is offended, but I for one am at a loss: it seems you want things to be modeled to a very precise level of realism, which leads me to believe you like to keep things as real as as possible (as do I). And smashing your paddle switch every time you merge is so unrealistic that the guys who flew the Hornet have never heard of it.

 

I understand your argument might be: "There hasn't been a documented combat dogfight in a long time so who knows, in an actual life-and-death furball they might do it." But according to them that is simply untrue as well, since they train the way they fight and you simply never resort to it unless you're about to become one with something else. Using the paddle switch to gain angles and win a knife fight is simply not in the syllabus, and since no one does it who nows how the jet actually behaves? So how could it be "modeled correctly"?

 

Anyway, if you do it you're going to down your jet and your skipper might want to have a word with you. My 2 cents. Happy flying

[BuzzU]

So, saving yourself from hitting the ground is the only realistic use of it? Is that why it's even available on the real plane?

 

It's an exploit for the air quakers but that doesn't concern me. I have no interest in those guys.

 

I'd like to know if being realistic means never touching it? No problem for me. I'll forget it's even there.

[Exorcet]

since no one does it who nows how the jet actually behaves? So how could it be "modeled correctly"?

 

 

Boeing. The engineers, I would hope, would know how the plane they designed works. Pilots know a lot, but they're not the only source of information.

[victorlima01]

Buzz I can't speak for them but that is how I interpret what they said. 20 years of service combined and they never touched it an never saw anyone touch it. These guys are pro and have incredible SA, so in the off-chance they put themselves in a position where over-stressing the airframe is the only chance to possibly save their lives, they did messed up somewhere (at least in training).

 

I don't think it's the only reason though - I think the logic behind it was: "the aircrew must be able to quickly overcome FCS-imposed limitations in any emergency they deem necessary." That is my interpretation though

[victorlima01]

Boeing. The engineers, I would hope, would know how the plane they designed works. Pilots know a lot, but they're not the only source of information.

 

Sure, except it's extremely unlikely Boeing will give this information to Eagle Dynamics. I thought that was a given, my bad

[Lex Talionis]

(I will try and put this to bed)

 

The hang up with all of this is the perception that over G-ing the aircraft is not that big a deal ... "whats wrong with a little extra G if it allows XYZ, bad things won't happen to me as a result (probably)" ... trying to down play its damaging effects through mental gymnastics.....I am a Functional Check Pilot and licensed aircraft mechanic, never have i ever heard an engineer tell me "itsss fiinnnnnnneee, launch it" from an over G. The reality is quite the opposite. I would never put my butt in an over G-ed aircraft that didn't have the mecs crawl around inspecting it like it was carrying the plague first.

 

The simple answer is it is one of the big taboos in aviation. Once the aircraft is over G-ed it is an "unknown". It is probably bent/altered/(insert your semantics to describe "change" here) in a way that you have no idea how it will effect the predictably of the aircrafts performance. You are literaly a test pilot on a numerically new "aircraft". You have no idea if it will stall at the same alpha, you have no idea if the oil system is scavaging properly and the jet can remain inverted flight for the 15 secconds it is supposed to be able to before it ruins an eng bearing, you have no idea if the fuel will transfer properly and keep the aircraft with in CG, you have literally no idea if (insert the most creative failure you can think of here). You dont know, and neither do the engineers untill the plane is on deck, tourn a part and inspected. And that is what they do for over speeds and over Gs, they literally tear things apart and inspect them because you simply can not trust the plane to perform as it is intended to.

 

We have already talked about the myriad of ways over G-ing the aircraft can be greatly compounded in the BFM environment as well.

 

If you over G the aircraft during an engagement , you are risking changing your corner speed, your climb performance, roll rates, low speed stability, the list goes on. You can easly give your adversary the performance advantage once you over G your aircraft. This is why we don't train to over G an aircraft, becase all the performance numbers we spend hundreds of hours memorizing so we can use them in the jet, become moot after an over G becausewe just dont know their accuracy anymore.

 

This is why failure modes are so important in this game. If a gamer decides to gamble thinking "ya, i can pull a little more to get the shot" suddenly the oil scavenge pump isn't working correctly and the next time he rolls inverted the engine seezes. Or the next time you transition to a 1 circle and use the flaps in the 14 it wraps off and turtles on its back stalled because one of the slats didn't drop. Or you run out of fuel driving back home becase the fuel won't transfer properly. You simply have no idea how the plane will fly now.

 

So yes, make the paddle switch work correctly, just know that "correctly " also means the correct consequences for using it as well. Benefits only is not "correct ".

 

This was something else that made the 18 great to BFM, you didn't have to worry as much about over G as in other aircraft. In any other aircraft without a G limiter you literally have to scan the accelerometer as you fight to make sure you don't over G, PITA.

 

I know this comunity is big into realism, simply understand you are ushering in a very "arcade" pholosophy by not giving the consequence of over G the proper attention. BFM and Gs go hand and hand, in that context you can't have a good flight model with out a good G damage model. And if one aircraft does not "damage " properly relitive to another, it would be an unfair (and unrealistic) advantage/disadvantage.

 

I will leave it at that. Hope the conversation was worth it for some.

(EDIT that was written in in somewhat sarcastic humor, please no one take offense, nothing was meant personal). )

Edited May 23, 2019 by Lex Talionis

[hornblower793]

Great explanation Lex (as always :thumbup:)