Turn rate has tanked with new update

[Cab]

...what may come next in HBs development cycle - go to 7.51G and the wings fall off, because of the often repeated mantra of 'it says in NATOPS' ...

 

If that's what you're worried about, then REJOICE!, because no one is asking for that and HB has never even hinted at it.

 

So when a Hornet Driver pulls the paddle and exceeds his g-limits, you will still be able to match him g for g.

 

 

[Wizard_03]

 

You completely fail to acknowledge that full flaps and G over 7.5 were used in training ACM by fleet pilots ... there is plenty of evidence to support this.

 

Straight up do not believe that. If an instructor saw you knowingly deviate from acceptable safety limitations there is no measure to the amount of force the book would be thrown in your face. If that did happen, it certainly was not shared with the fleet, nor considered normal by any stretch of the imagination. Let alone the implications of breaking aircraft in actual combat situations.

 

Someone mentioned the paddle switch in the hornet, pulling it would likewise result in a quick trip to the COs office and a review of your qualifications and future flying the jet. I guarantee any intentional breaches of NATOPS or any other fleet guidelines we're treated with the same professionalism in the tomcat community.

[Kula66]

Wizard_03 - are you saying that pilots never used the flaps above 225kts and (at different times) never went above 7.5G as stated in NATOPS? If so, sorry I don't believe you.

[Victory205]

Wizard_03 - are you saying that pilots never used the flaps above 225kts and (at different times) never went above 7.5G as stated in NATOPS? If so, sorry I don't believe you.

 

Yes they did, almost always inadvertently, usually an over speed on takeoff. They also broke things, especially the flaps, and if while a student in training with an instructor on board, they received “downs” and suffered the consequences for their stupidity. The flaps locked out and broke torque tubes, even when operating within the flight envelope.

 

I pulled 8.2 G’s inadvertently while at Topgun. It broke the maneuvering flaps and eventually, an ECS heat exchanger that grounded the aircraft until it was replaced. My wingman also broke his auto wing sweep system due to an over G. You don’t hear these geniuses mention the aftermath of their over G exploits.

Full flaps were typically only used in a flat scissors, well within the structural envelope, at approx one G and below 150 KIAS. The torque tubes used a splined shaft to account for wing bending, and operating it under massive G caused failures. Reversing direction was tough on it as well, and the greater the extension, the greater the load on the splines and the shafts. Using the flap handle and ending up with locked out flaps, meaning the wings couldn’t sweep limiting acceleration and speed in combat is a stupid place to be.

 

Must say, I had never heard the story of Dale’s panicked SAM break, where upon he over stressed and departed the aircraft, stalled an engine (gee, I wonder if the MCB CB was pulled?), and ended up single engine, out of airspeed and ideas over Baghdad at night in the AAA envelope. That takes talent that most don’t possess.

[fat creason]

 

Yes they did, almost always inadvertently, usually an over speed on takeoff. They also broke things, especially the flaps, and if while a student in training with an instructor on board, they received “downs” and suffered the consequences for their stupidity. The flaps locked out and broke torque tubes, even when operating within the flight envelope.

 

I pulled 8.2 G’s inadvertently while at Topgun. It broke the maneuvering flaps and eventually, an ECS heat exchanger that grounded the aircraft until it was replaced. My wingman also broke his auto wing sweep system due to an over G. You don’t hear these geniuses mention the aftermath of their over G exploits.

Full flaps were typically only used in a flat scissors, well within the structural envelope, at approx one G and below 150 KIAS. The torque tubes used a splined shaft to account for wing bending, and operating it under massive G caused failures. Reversing direction was tough on it as well, and the greater the extension, the greater the load on the splines and the shafts. Using the flap handle and ending up with locked out flaps, meaning the wings couldn’t sweep limiting acceleration and speed in combat is a stupid place to be.

 

Must say, I had never heard the story of Dale’s panicked SAM break, where upon he over stressed and departed the aircraft, stalled an engine (gee, I wonder if the MCB CB was pulled?), and ended up single engine, out of airspeed and ideas over Baghdad at night in the AAA envelope. That takes talent that most don’t possess.

 

@Kula66 The flap jamming model is designed to reflect the reality of the flap actuating mechanism's "shortcomings", if you need to think about it like that. It's just how it was. Please just read this post if you haven't yet. At least we don't allow flap jamming at all with just man flaps deployed (from Victory's story above), in that sense we're being lenient on everyone.

Edited November 22, 2020 by fat creason

[Kula66]

 

Yes they did, almost always inadvertently, usually an over speed on takeoff. They also broke things, especially the flaps, and if while a student in training with an instructor on board, they received “downs” and suffered the consequences for their stupidity. The flaps locked out and broke torque tubes, even when operating within the flight envelope.

 

I pulled 8.2 G’s inadvertently while at Topgun. It broke the maneuvering flaps and eventually, an ECS heat exchanger that grounded the aircraft until it was replaced. My wingman also broke his auto wing sweep system due to an over G. You don’t hear these geniuses mention the aftermath of their over G exploits.

Full flaps were typically only used in a flat scissors, well within the structural envelope, at approx one G and below 150 KIAS. The torque tubes used a splined shaft to account for wing bending, and operating it under massive G caused failures. Reversing direction was tough on it as well, and the greater the extension, the greater the load on the splines and the shafts. Using the flap handle and ending up with locked out flaps, meaning the wings couldn’t sweep limiting acceleration and speed in combat is a stupid place to be.

 

Must say, I had never heard the story of Dale’s panicked SAM break, where upon he over stressed and departed the aircraft, stalled an engine (gee, I wonder if the MCB CB was pulled?), and ended up single engine, out of airspeed and ideas over Baghdad at night in the AAA envelope. That takes talent that most don’t possess.

 

Victory, I really appreciate you taking the time to reply ... as I've said numerous times in other threads, the SMEs info is the best that's available to HB, as we are in undocumented territory, and what makes this aircraft so believable and such fun to fly. Hopefully the issues with 54s, Jester and turn-rate can get fixed ASAP and we can all start enjoying this awesome plane again and I'll have to learn to BFM without aux flaps ;) Thankyou Gents.

 

PS> FC, yes I've read it thanks ... much appreciated.

[Wizard_03]

Wizard_03 - are you saying that pilots never used the flaps above 225kts and (at different times) never went above 7.5G as stated in NATOPS? If so, sorry I don't believe you.

 

Key word is intentional.

 

I don't believe that flagrant violations of safety standards go unpunished no. So is it standard practice to exceed those limitations? Absolutely not, we're they exceeded at times? Sure.

[maxsin72]

A very interesting report on the F-14's Slat and Flap System from a Former Turkey Maintainer http://www.zone-five.net/showthread.php?t=18706

A user also write: "when the fleet got DFCS (Digital Flight Control System), in 1999/2000 the flap/slat lockout rate for everyone went down unbelievably"

 

 

[Hummingbird]

 

Yes they did, almost always inadvertently, usually an over speed on takeoff. They also broke things, especially the flaps, and if while a student in training with an instructor on board, they received “downs” and suffered the consequences for their stupidity. The flaps locked out and broke torque tubes, even when operating within the flight envelope.

 

I pulled 8.2 G’s inadvertently while at Topgun. It broke the maneuvering flaps and eventually, an ECS heat exchanger that grounded the aircraft until it was replaced. My wingman also broke his auto wing sweep system due to an over G. You don’t hear these geniuses mention the aftermath of their over G exploits.

Full flaps were typically only used in a flat scissors, well within the structural envelope, at approx one G and below 150 KIAS. The torque tubes used a splined shaft to account for wing bending, and operating it under massive G caused failures. Reversing direction was tough on it as well, and the greater the extension, the greater the load on the splines and the shafts. Using the flap handle and ending up with locked out flaps, meaning the wings couldn’t sweep limiting acceleration and speed in combat is a stupid place to be.

 

Must say, I had never heard the story of Dale’s panicked SAM break, where upon he over stressed and departed the aircraft, stalled an engine (gee, I wonder if the MCB CB was pulled?), and ended up single engine, out of airspeed and ideas over Baghdad at night in the AAA envelope. That takes talent that most don’t possess.

 

8.2 G's below 0.58 mach (maneuver flap/slat envelope), damn that was some yank :D

[Hummingbird]

 

@Kula66 The flap jamming model is designed to reflect the reality of the flap actuating mechanism's "shortcomings", if you need to think about it like that. It's just how it was. Please just read this post if you haven't yet. At least we don't allow flap jamming at all with just man flaps deployed (from Victory's story above), in that sense we're being lenient on everyone.

 

I do think the maneuver slats/flaps jamming was an exceedingly rare thing though, considering the speed/AoA range where they would at all be deployed. First time I've ever heard of it, but I guess it would be possible at very low alt. So I'm quite happy you didn't decide to model that, as I think Victory's incident was likely helped along by long term fatigue (top gun birds are afterall punished a lot) and was a very rare exception.

[Hummingbird]

G's over 7.5 were pulled many times' ... yes I know. I was using it as an example of what may come next in HBs development cycle - go to 7.51G and the wings fall off, because of the often repeated mantra of 'it says in NATOPS' ... I was using it as an example of where what it says in NATOPS being a safety/maintainability related figure, and it had a significant safety margin built into to, like-wise, I would expect that Aux flaps figure to have some reasonable safety margin.

 

You get a safety figure of 130% to 150% so at minimum deformation would not start until 9.7G and the wings would fall off at 11.2 or so, that's if you use 7.5 as the design limit. HB aren't silly, they know what they're doing.

 

The F14 was bench tested to 13.3 G's, and the wings still held. Heck 12.5 G's have been pulled by aircraft in service with zero signs of airframe damage. HB knows all this as well, so you don't need to worry about the wings coming off your cat. At such G's you should be worried about breaking your electronics first, as they break somewhere above 11.5 G IIRC - which HB actually models.

[GGTharos]

The F14 was bench tested to 13.3 G's, and the wings still held.

 

What are the details of this test? What does 13.3G mean exactly? At what simulated gross weight? Saying '13.3Gs' and using it as a benchmark is very poor as a benchmark for setting up g tolerance. You need the actual force. Further more, the onset is important as are the results. Was there deformation? At what force did they break and which physical point? (Because yes, you can take them that far in the test).

What about the rest of the fuselage?

 

Heck 12.5 G's have been pulled by aircraft in service with zero signs of airframe damage.

 

Again, actual data on this, or another anecdote? Right now AFAIK the damage was simply not related to the public crowd.

 

 

[Quid]

 

Again, actual data on this, or another anecdote? Right now AFAIK the damage was simply not related to the public crowd.

 

 

I haven't heard about whatever effects there were for the 12.5g pulls certain aircrews have mentioned doing (e.g., Okie, Rookie), but I do know Hoser's 12.2g defensive break against Hawk during the ACEVAL/AIMVAL workups was recorded by the TACTS range at Nellis. They ran two more sets after the "yank" (which got the fight neutral, then advantage Hoser before a knock-it-off/deck) before the plane came back.1 Hoser elaborated "The high 'g' hurt Hill Billy's neck and he was out of the hunt for a few days. We had the brand new Blk 90 Turkey x-rayed, inspected and gone over by a team of Grummanites...not a lo[o]se rivet, zero skin wrinkles, perfect engine mounts, no hyd or fuel leaks; Just a broke RO."2 It is important to remember that the plane involved was brand new at the time.

 

EDIT:

The aircraft involved was BuNo 159827. It was stricken from the Navy 14 January 1997.

 

References:

1. Donald E. Auten, Roger Ball! The Odyssey of John Monroe "Hawk" Smith, Navy Fighter Pilot, (New York: iUniverse Star Press, 2006), 353-354.

2. Joe "Hoser" Satrapa, archived from Tomcat-Sunset.org.

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Quid
Identified F-14 involved.

[HAAUK]

 

What are the details of this test? What does 13.3G mean exactly? At what simulated gross weight? Saying '13.3Gs' and using it as a benchmark is very poor as a benchmark for setting up g tolerance. You need the actual force. Further more, the onset is important as are the results. Was there deformation? At what force did they break and which physical point? (Because yes, you can take them that far in the test).

What about the rest of the fuselage?

 

 

 

Again, actual data on this, or another anecdote? Right now AFAIK the damage was simply not related to the public crowd.

 

 

agree would like to see the data, the USAF has alot of data and reports on real men of genius over-Ging their F-15's at 11G and the airframe bends... one particular case i read, the bbudwiser drinker pulled 11Gs long enough to have the airframe written off...

 

 

[GGTharos]

 

agree would like to see the data, the USAF has alot of data and reports on real men of genius over-Ging their F-15's at 11G and the airframe bends... one particular case i read, the bbudwiser drinker pulled 11Gs long enough to have the airframe written off...

 

 

The only over-g that wrote-off an airframe that I am aware of was documented (as in data pulled off the aircraft computer) at 12.5g's for several seconds, the pilot trying to save his own life after experiencing spacial disorientation and diving towards the sea in a training flight.

 

There are several 9-11g (documented in GLOC studies) and one other 12g incident (Over Iraq, engagement with MiG-25s) which did not result in the airframe being written off, but there's no detail as in the above example. I am also aware of one disintegration, but again lacking in detail.

[Victory205]

 

8.2 G's below 0.58 mach (maneuver flap/slat envelope), damn that was some yank :D

 

You don’t seem to understand the maneuver flap envelope or how they function and what causes them to break at all...

 

 

 

[HAAUK]

 

The only over-g that wrote-off an airframe that I am aware of was documented (as in data pulled off the aircraft computer) at 12.5g's for several seconds, the pilot trying to save his own life after experiencing spacial disorientation and diving towards the sea in a training flight.

 

There are several 9-11g (documented in GLOC studies) and one other 12g incident (Over Iraq, engagement with MiG-25s) which did not result in the airframe being written off, but there's no detail as in the above example. I am also aware of one disintegration, but again lacking in detail.

 

the one i saw was 11G in BFM training, written off, to be very fair to the eagle, it was probably a very old airframe (Training Squadron)... I might bbe wrong though... it was the high 11's like 11.5 and above, i forgot to add the +

 

the thing about G's is it is not just the amplitude but also the exposure.... a very very short spike of 20G is not going to do as much damage as 11G over 1 minute... to a structure... just for fun, if you drop your phone from 1m, and measure the G with a professional Accelerometer, you will see a G spike of 200G and above for 0.1 second and nothing breaks (If you are lucky)...

[HAAUK]

 

You don’t seem to understand the maneuver flap envelope or how they function and what causes them to break at all...

 

 

 

now now sir, be gentle, most of us here never flew real planes before, let alone the best damn fighter ever made,

 

please be gentle if you are going to scold me for this :D

[GGTharos]

 

the one i saw was 11G in BFM training, written off, to be very fair to the eagle, it was probably a very old airframe (Training Squadron)... I might bbe wrong though... it was the high 11's like 11.5 and above, i forgot to add the +

 

the thing about G's is it is not just the amplitude but also the exposure.... a very very short spike of 20G is not going to do as much damage as 11G over 1 minute... to a structure... just for fun, if you drop your phone from 1m, and measure the G with a professional Accelerometer, you will see a G spike of 200G and above for 0.1 second and nothing breaks (If you are lucky)...

 

Are you able to dig up a report on it? It would be great to be able to add it to the record. Anyway, I agree with what you're saying - the point I was trying to make was simply that once you Over-G you can't count on anecdotes to model airframe survival, and there are circumstances which can severely damage the aircraft and circumstances where they won't.

[Victory205]

Are you gents familiar with rolling G limits? Do you know about “The Staple” and the delamination re-works the older blocks went through? For all the boasting about “Grumman engineers” that some pilots made, those same Grumman engineers provided an over G schedule that applied to airframe life limits and also governed inspections.

 

I assume that all of this drama is directed because some of you want to dominate while playing on online servers?

[Skysurfer]

 

I assume that all of this drama is directed because some of you want to dominate while playing on online servers?

 

In 99% of cases it is exactly that. Also due to the lack of such attention to detail or "realism" on all other modules in DCS. You can pull and roll your heart out in the F15 or Mig-29 without anything ever breaking.

[Victory205]

 

In 99% of cases it is exactly that. Also due to the lack of such attention to detail or "realism" on all other modules in DCS. You can pull and roll your heart out in the F15 or Mig-29 without anything ever breaking.

 

If you want to learn, and see how good you are, then the answer is to fly 1v1 against similar F14’s. The rest is Call of Duty level nonsense, not worthy of your time.

 

My involvement in this emanates from a desire to preserve the history of the aircraft, meaning duplicating it as it was, so others can experience the good and the bad. Otherwise, it’s just a game, and a waste of time.

[Skysurfer]

 

If you want to learn, and see how good you are, then the answer is to fly 1v1 against similar F14’s. The rest is Call of Duty level nonsense, not worthy of your time.

 

My involvement in this emanates from a desire to preserve the history of the aircraft, meaning duplicating it as it was, so others can experience the good and the bad. Otherwise, it’s just a game, and a waste of time.

 

100% agreed and very much so appreciated :thumbup: It's just that the majority of the community seems to be focused on the "Call of Duty / Airquake" aspect of the game, racking up as many kills and getting high kill/death ratios in PvP. Everyone can obviously decide to play the game the way he or she wants and take it as seriously as they want but then they also shouldn't comlain about "balance" when a developer like HB decides to take the simulation deeper and make it more true-to life in various aspects. This will sadly be a never ending discussion, really.

[Quid]

Are you gents familiar with rolling G limits? Do you know about “The Staple” and the delamination re-works the older blocks went through? For all the boasting about “Grumman engineers” that some pilots made, those same Grumman engineers provided an over G schedule that applied to airframe life limits and also governed inspections.

 

I assume that all of this drama is directed because some of you want to dominate while playing on online servers?

 

Wait…you’re telling me I have only 4.33g asymmetrical at 60,000lbs and that if I drop the flaps at that weight I’ve only got 1.6g!? B…b…but MUH’ IRONWORKZ!!!!

 

Seriously, though, I’m not sure how many aircraft actually have variable stress modeled based on weight, rolling, stores, etc. IIRC the F/A-18 at least has a variable limiter (for symmetrical anyways), but just pull that flappy paddle and they all go away. I think people would be surprised how much it changes and how low the limits get for all different airframes depending on what stores they’re packing and how heavy they are.

 

[GGTharos]

Are you gents familiar with rolling G limits? Do you know about “The Staple” and the delamination re-works the older blocks went through? For all the boasting about “Grumman engineers” that some pilots made, those same Grumman engineers provided an over G schedule that applied to airframe life limits and also governed inspections.

 

I assume that all of this drama is directed because some of you want to dominate while playing on online servers?

 

The reason for 'flying the T'? Sure. It would make a gigantic difference in how people handle their various aircraft and it would be a great change IMHO. Although any whine about certain other aircraft not experiencing this just hints at people's poor BFM more than anything else. The ability to do more heavily loaded rolls is a marginal advantage at best, though now heavily used to evade missiles (because a tight 7g barrel roll apparently destroys the current guidance model somehow)