Questions regarding the FM

[shagrat]

Pretty sure every SME is very knowledgeable. That is their whole purpose.

The focus of expertise can vary. Some may know systems and details from a crew chief perspective, others my have flown the subject in question for quite a while... Gero Finke seems to be the kind of SME who can provide a lot of knowledge to the FM. :)

[Terrorban]

The focus of expertise can vary. Some may know systems and details from a crew chief perspective, others my have flown the subject in question for quite a while... Gero Finke seems to be the kind of SME who can provide a lot of knowledge to the FM. :)

 

I certainly hope so. There is too much hype behind this jet and we could use someone with a strong backbone to stand by their calculations when ED come knocking at their door. We know this jet will be on top of pvp game and a certain part of community will be enraged.

[Hummingbird]

Since the thread concering the G limit was deleted altogether instead of just removing the troll posts by Thinder, and since the question is FM related, I'll repost my question for the TG team here:

 

How much of an overshoot past 9 G's does the DFLCS allow for in the EF ? 9.3, 9.5 G ? and is it a constant hard limit that can be maintained in a sustained turn, or just a brief overshoot ?

 

Also how is the G limiter overridden (i.e. is it with a button, or just a harder pull on the stick), and what G's can be attained when doing so?

[Spectre11]

Since the thread concering the G limit was deleted altogether instead of just removing the troll posts by Thinder, and since the question is FM related, I'll repost my question for the TG team here:

 

How much of an overshoot past 9 G's does the DFLCS allow for in the EF ? 9.3, 9.5 G ? and is it a constant hard limit that can be maintained in a sustained turn, or just a brief overshoot ?

 

Also how is the G limiter overridden (i.e. is it with a button, or just a harder pull on the stick), and what G's can be attained when doing so?

 

The g-override was meant to be activated by pulling the stick beyond the spring out forces (pulling harder on the stick). The g-override capability was designed into the FCS, but has been removed, which is first and foremost a software thing to do. IIRC there was the intention to re-introduce it, but this hasn't happened.

 

The FCS itself does not permit g-overrides beyond the 9 g load limit, with exception of brief overshots (~1 sec) in the half g range due to the high g-onset rate of up to 15 g/sec.

[Hummingbird]

The g-override was meant to be activated by pulling the stick beyond the spring out forces (pulling harder on the stick). The g-override capability was designed into the FCS, but has been removed, which is first and foremost a software thing to do. IIRC there was the intention to re-introduce it, but this hasn't happened.

 

The FCS itself does not permit g-overrides beyond the 9 g load limit, with exception of brief overshots (~1 sec) in the half g range due to the high g-onset rate of up to 15 g/sec.

 

Many thanks for the information Spectre, that was just what I was looking for :)

 

Also, 15 G/sec, holy smokes ! Definitely need that 0.5 G overshoot capability then.

[dundun92]

Wow thats an impressive G onset lol

[TLTeo]

That can't be a pleasant experience damn

[CMDRennie]

That can't be a pleasant experience damn

 

 

From what I've heard the G suit is so good that sustained 9 Gs is relatively comfortable.

[Mr_Burns]

From what I've heard the G suit is so good that sustained 9 Gs is relatively comfortable.

 

 

The display pilot role represents a completely different challenge for me — especially when you’re pulling 9G very close to the ground. Thankfully Typhoon’s aircrew equipment, the G-suits and so on, are awesome. It means you can pull 9G instantaneously but feel confident you’re going to be able to stay awake whilst you’re doing it!

 

 

https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/dream-job-for-2020-typhoon-display-pilot

 

 

Staying awake and relative comfort may not be mutually exclusive

[Expert]

The EM diagramms are classified, but it will be very very very close to them.

So, we will present the BFM-Beast, the Typhoon really is ;)

 

I hope that by "very close" you mean that you have the data but cannot share it.

[MKev]

It is well known that F-16C is a 9G fighter. There are books and pilot interivews that claim records of up to 11 or 12g in the F-16. Experts know what the F-16 is capable of and all of them have seen the maneuverability of the EF. 9G claim for Eurofighter is a joke and I can say like many other observers, that the Eurofighter is capable of well beyond 9-10G but we are not supposed to know it. ;) Exact numbers are certainly classified.

[Spectre11]

It is well known that F-16C is a 9G fighter. There are books and pilot interivews that claim records of up to 11 or 12g in the F-16. Experts know what the F-16 is capable of and all of them have seen the maneuverability of the EF. 9G claim for Eurofighter is a joke and I can say like many other observers, that the Eurofighter is capable of well beyond 9-10G but we are not supposed to know it. ;) Exact numbers are certainly classified.

 

Sorry to say so, but that's a misleading statement. Every modern combat aircraft and even older 2nd and 3rd generation designs could pull 9g and more. From an aerodynamic perspective it's not an issue. The problem, in addition to G-LOC, is that over-ging an airframe can physically damage and even destroy the airframe. Every aircraft has a design load limit, which is typically 9 g for most modern fighters. Opposed to older designs which had no g-limiters, inferior aerodynamics and thust modern fighters can sustain 9 g and reach 9 g or more at lower speeds which translates into higher STR and ITR . The risk of airframe damage or destruction still exists and that's the reason why even over-g capable modern airframes limit the amount of g-exceedance. The Eurofighter's FCS doesn't permit over-g atm, albeit the airframe could handle it in theory.

[Southernbear]

And even if it did the Human body's upper limit is 9gs. Where enough training can get (most people) to be able to withstand it for short periods of time without blacking out and even with the training prolonged exposure is very draining.

[Zergburger]

if this does indeed have a G onset rate or >10G/s I can't wait to watch how many dudes black themselves out in 3 seconds flat with the current G-LOC modelling.

The FC3 F15 has about 13G/s with a max of 13G and you see people blacking out QUICK when they do the "instant stick to gut" maneuver.

[Aluminum Donkey]

It is well known that F-16C is a 9G fighter. There are books and pilot interivews that claim records of up to 11 or 12g in the F-16.

 

***

 

 

I'm not entirely sure how, since the F-16 is hard-limited to about 9g and there's no way to bypass it. It's an inherent limit in the entire flight control system. It's not like an F/A-18, which has a G-limiter bypass switch on the stick, and an F-15, which has no G-limiter at all.

 

Considering how the F-16's wings are made of rubber, I can't imagine them surviving 12g. They look like they're gonna bust at half that :)

 

AD

[mvsgas]

I'm not entirely sure how, since the F-16 is hard-limited to about 9g and there's no way to bypass it. ...

 

I was told once:

The maximum g experienced can be higher

than 9.5 g depending on flight conditions, type

of maneuver flown, stores configuration, gross

weight, and CG. Full aft stick maneuvers started above

500 KCAS are more susceptible to

over-g. In some cases, aerodynamic changes

occur rapidly and the g limiter cannot prevent a

brief increase in g. Similarly, a brief increase in

g can occur if an inadvertent roll input is made.

 

• A false maximum g indication may be displayed

in the HUD due to INU vibration while

the aircraft is at maximum g. G indications

above 10 (e.g., 0.2 for 10.2g) have been observed.

 

• On D models, due to the location of the accelerometer,

it should not be used to determine maximum g

force.

Edited September 3, 2020 by mvsgas

[QuiGon]

Sorry to say so, but that's a misleading statement. Every modern combat aircraft and even older 2nd and 3rd generation designs could pull 9g and more. From an aerodynamic perspective it's not an issue. The problem, in addition to G-LOC, is that over-ging an airframe can physically damage and even destroy the airframe. Every aircraft has a design load limit, which is typically 9 g for most modern fighters. Opposed to older designs which had no g-limiters, inferior aerodynamics and thust modern fighters can sustain 9 g and reach 9 g or more at lower speeds which translates into higher STR and ITR . The risk of airframe damage or destruction still exists and that's the reason why even over-g capable modern airframes limit the amount of g-exceedance. The Eurofighter's FCS doesn't permit over-g atm, albeit the airframe could handle it in theory.

Indeed, I once heard of an F-15 pilot who reached 14G to avoid ground collision. The aircraft was seemingly fine, but as the integrity of the internal structure could not be trusted anymore after such high over-G, the aircraft never flew again and ended up as a gate guard.

[Hummingbird]

The F-16's DFLCS allows for 9.3 G's symmetric, anything above that is an overshoot, and I believe above 9.8 G's symmetric indicates a DLFCS error. That said 10+ G's with cross control is apparently normal.

 

Anyway as for the EF, with an onset rate of 15 G/s there has to be a temporary allowable overshoot, and 9+0.5/1.0 G should in theory be enough.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Hummingbird

[eatthis]

for arguments sake lets say tg have the exact data (or have it well enough memorized etc) how does it work legally?

ie can they be sued/jailed if they redproduce it too faithfully?

will they just have to guess how close they can actually make it legally or will there by discussions back and forth with the relevant military about what they will allow?

[Aluminum Donkey]

The beauty of many of the jets in DCS, and the reason they fly so close to reality, is in large part due to official EM charts being available to the developers. Hence I was wondering how the EF2000 will be taking on here?

 

In other words: Will it be purely calculated? Or will you have official EM charts to follow?

 

Nobody knows if they fly like the real thing. It's a video game for entertainment, not a military training simulator.

 

It's probably pretty decent, but there's no reason to think that these modules really handle and perform like the real aircraft other than that we like to believe it :)

 

AD

[jstnj]

Nobody knows if they fly like the real thing. It's a video game for entertainment, not a military training simulator.

 

It's probably pretty decent, but there's no reason to think that these modules really handle and perform like the real aircraft other than that we like to believe it :)

 

AD

 

 

 

 

I bet you're fun at parties... :clap_2:

[Hummingbird]

Nobody knows if they fly like the real thing. It's a video game for entertainment, not a military training simulator.

 

It's probably pretty decent, but there's no reason to think that these modules really handle and perform like the real aircraft other than that we like to believe it :)

 

AD

 

Actually AD, this is a flight simulator, in the study sim class no less, hence things are expected to be accurate.

 

Only thing not expected to be accurate are classified weapons & detection systems.

[shagrat]

Nobody knows if they fly like the real thing. It's a video game for entertainment, not a military training simulator.

 

It's probably pretty decent, but there's no reason to think that these modules really handle and perform like the real aircraft other than that we like to believe it :)

 

AD

You new here? Interesting statement... :D

Considering that subject matter experts (aka pilots that have flown the things, maintainers that worked on them, etc.) work very close with the developers on assuring that the aircraft in this high fidelity study sim actually are as close to the real thing as possible. And as some of these "modules" are actually originally developed for "real military training" we can expect that most things, not classified are pretty much accurate... :smartass:

[Noctrach]

What's the point in calling it a study sim if there's no documentation to study and the entire thing is based on SME input :/ a single SME at that. No disrespect intended but even though his credentials are great and these are undoubtedly very passionate devs... Pretty sure if I talk to 10 different pilots I get 10 different opinions aside from the fact that their jet is the best one out there.

 

Weird to me how so many endless discussions are fought on these forums on these kinds of topics, but no worries, if we like the jet it's fine whichever way it's modeled.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Noctrach

[Hummingbird]

What's the point in calling it a study sim if there's no documentation to study and the entire thing is based on SME input :/ a single SME at that. No disrespect intended but even though his credentials are great and these are undoubtedly very passionate devs... Pretty sure if I talk to 10 different pilots I get 10 different opinions aside from the fact that their jet is the best one out there.

 

Weird to me how so many endless discussions are fought on these forums on these kinds of topics, but no worries, if we like the jet it's fine whichever way it's modeled.

 

They have several SME's afaik, and a PhD in aero working the FM. Also the SME's probably have access to the EM diagrams, and thus can ensure a close match in terms of performance.

 

That said, my worries are the same as yours, i.e. that performance won't match the real EM diagrams due to lack of data or secrecy. However I hope, and have faith, that this won't be as big of a problem as my fear says it could be.