Jump to content

Roll Input structural failure modeling is incorrect.


=475FG= Dawger

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

Fly By Wire

they were ripping their wings off when they pulled the paddle (disabled the limiter) too...

EDIT: I have a tacview where a Viggen pulled an estimated 11 G on me in a merge. Clearly the limits for that aircraft should be looked at too. Regardless, you guys should not be putting your jets in a position where these become issues. Many users don't know the actual failure points of their modules, because those are set beyond the load limits in the manual. Because they respect those limits, they will spend years flying the F-5, and never snapping the wings once. They don't make it a policy to wreck their jets on every sortie.

 

I read somewhere, I think on the Viggen forum that it has a structural limit of 12 G.

But I agree with you randomTOTEN, and something on the Viggen FM needs to be limited.  I flew against a rookie AI Viggen, and the thing was sustaining 9.9 Gs and maneuvering.  Yet another UFO AI pilot.

Anyone can try it.  Try shooting down a Rookie Viggen in a MiG-19.  It won't happen, even though they have roughly the same wingloading, but the 19 has more thrust to weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, [40th SOC] Vapor said:

Also, when the manual says "don't exceed 5.2 G with full lateral stick deflection," that does NOT mean you are free to yank 3/4 aileron deflection at 7.33 G.

The total load factor is a vector sum of the loads affecting the aircraft, and the ultimate load limit is not static; the airframe is better at handling some load combinations than others. Yes, you CAN enter some amount of roll at above the roll entry limit, but it's a sliding scale that will also be non-uniform. The manual gives you a number that has been tested to work under a specific set of conditions: constant aft stick, full lateral aileron, at 5.2G with 2,200+ lbs of fuel, or 5.4 G with less than 2,000 lbs of fuel. If you do that, but pull harder mid-roll, you exceed the total load limit. If you add rudder mid-roll, you exceed the load limit. If you do it abruptly even if only at 5G, you exceed the load limit (hence the AFTO entry).

At 7.33G, you have NO available roll. You are already maxing the jet out symmetrically. If you add an asymmetric component to that, some parts of the aircraft will exceed the load limit. 

Below 6.5G (or 7.33G if you have less than 2,200 lbs of fuel), you MIGHT have some amount of available roll, but that's not guaranteed. Asymmetric roll loads are complicated and their effects on the airframe are not uniform. All that you know for sure is the endpoints of the curve, because that's what they tested for the manual: at 5.2G you (just barely) have full roll input available, and that at 6.5G you have zero roll input available. Inducing roll at beyond 5.2 G is in the untested grey area: you know that you have less than full roll available, and probably that the farther above 5.2G you are, the less you have, but you do not know how much less. Nothing is guaranteed above 5.2G.

I do not disagree that 7.33 G is the published limit. And I don’t disagree that the aircraft was tested and proven to withstand 1.5 times that limit (10.995 G) 

My disagreement with the current modeling is the catastrophic  failure of the strongest aircraft structure the first time that limit is exceeded.

That is not how aircraft are designed and built. Structural limits are meant to provide a lifetime of service. Also, they are designed according to “fail-safe” principles. 
 

Metal fatigue is cumulative. Metal stressed beyond a certain point deforms permanently. If 10.995 G is the point of catastrophic wing failure, then the lesser structures should be prone to permanent deformation and/or failure at much lower G. The wing itself should be deformed at a much lower G. Every F-5 that has experienced high G below 10.995 G should have damage requiring major wing repair or replacement.

We know this isn’t the case.

Interpreting the limitations to mean catastrophic failure at the first instance 1.5 times the limit is reached is an arcade version solely intended to modify gameplay.

  • Like 4

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I do not disagree that 7.33 G is the published limit. And I don’t disagree that the aircraft was tested and proven to withstand 1.5 times that limit (10.995 G) 

My disagreement with the current modeling is the catastrophic  failure of the strongest aircraft structure the first time that limit is exceeded.

That is not how aircraft are designed and built. Structural limits are meant to provide a lifetime of service. Also, they are designed according to “fail-safe” principles.

Actually no, what you think of as strongest wing structure is actually the weakest one and would probably cause catastrophic event if it failed. Like a front or rear main beam, any other structure in that wing is designed at least to the same limit, and than its tested. If anything breaks before that beam fails ultimate load of 11g (or the beam itself before 11g) its a failed design.

And such structures are designed as safe-life, not fail-safe principles. Fail-safe for example in hydraulic system mean if one of your hydraulic pump fails there is another one to back it up. Safe life is such that the component or a structure can not fail during its lifetime, if its operated within specified operational envelope, because there isnt anything to back it up (where as fail-safe systems can fail even if operated within specified limits).

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Metal fatigue is cumulative. Metal stressed beyond a certain point deforms permanently. If 10.995 G is the point of catastrophic wing failure, then the lesser structures should be prone to permanent deformation and/or failure at much lower G. The wing itself should be deformed at a much lower G. Every F-5 that has experienced high G below 10.995 G should have damage requiring major wing repair or replacement.

That is so, you have limit load for a reason, below this limit there is no permanent deformations and the wing would serve its whole service life just fine. If you exceed this limit I assure you the wing would be subject to inspections and very likely will have shortened service life or even replaced (depending on how overstressed it was). Opposite can be true too actually if the wing was operated within limits its whole life, its life can be extended further (very common in gliders)

 

 

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Golo said:

Actually no, what you think of as strongest wing structure is actually the weakest one and would probably cause catastrophic event if it failed. Like a front or rear main beam, any other structure in that wing is designed at least to the same limit, and than its tested. If anything breaks before that beam fails ultimate load of 11g (or the beam itself before 11g) its a failed design.

And such structures are designed as safe-life, not fail-safe principles. Fail-safe for example in hydraulic system mean if one of your hydraulic pump fails there is another one to back it up. Safe life is such that the component or a structure can not fail during its lifetime, if its operated within specified operational envelope, because there isnt anything to back it up (where as fail-safe systems can fail even if operated within specified limits).

That is so, you have limit load for a reason, below this limit there is no permanent deformations and the wing would serve its whole service life just fine. If you exceed this limit I assure you the wing would be subject to inspections and very likely will have shortened service life or even replaced (depending on how overstressed it was). Opposite can be true too actually if the wing was operated within limits its whole life, its life can be extended further (very common in gliders)

 

 

     

The military design specification disagrees with you on the subject of fail-safe design. 

As to the idea that the wing spar is the weakest link in the design, I have no response other than Have a Merry Christmas. 

3D10C9C1-B519-4745-8935-A05A7CCE5818.jpeg

  • Like 3

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

As to the idea that the wing spar is the weakest link in the design, I have no response other than Have a Merry Christmas.

I can tell you from my personal experience, I have been to aeronautical test lab twice when they did wing tests to destruction. What happened past ultimate load limit (120ish % of the ultimate load as I remember) was that right aft (iirc) beam flange failed close to the wing root. No other component failed as far as I could tell, so yes it was the weakest structure in the wing.

Merry Christmas to you as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golo said:

I can tell you from my personal experience, I have been to aeronautical test lab twice when they did wing tests to destruction. What happened past ultimate load limit (120ish % of the ultimate load as I remember) was that right aft (iirc) beam flange failed close to the wing root. No other component failed as far as I could tell, so yes it was the weakest structure in the wing.

Merry Christmas to you as well.

I find it amusing that you are fighting for catastrophic wing failure at ultimate load yet you have personally witnessed that it occurs 20% higher. Happy New Year

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I find it amusing that you are fighting for catastrophic wing failure at ultimate load yet you have personally witnessed that it occurs 20% higher. Happy New Year

I would say it depends on your philosophy, one might say its good that it take more than designed for safety and all. Other might say the wing was unnecessarily overbuilt (witch has it drawbacks like added weight, cost, and loss of performance), and it would be better if it failed at (or just couple % after) the ultimate load.

Im not sure what is better to be honest, they are both valid points. ED opted to have wings break at ultimate load, but I dont see anything wrong with that really, and certainly no bugs with structure limit loads that I could find on my end.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I don’t understand this whole discussion.

My very first job in my career as graduated engineer was the analysis of fatigue and service life of military jets (at that time Phantom, Alpha Jet, Tornado and MiG-29).

Structural failures of a military jet due to a single over stressing event is a kind of non-issue. Snapping wings is a thing in the world of gliders or in general aviation or for the old warbirds. I’m not even aware of such a case for military jets but I don’t have a complete overview here. Structural failures of military jets are due to fatigue and not because of a single over stress event.

In case of a massive over stress of a jet as a singular event I would expect intense plastic deformations in the regions of highest loads rather than an instant desintegration effect.

Having said that it seems that those who criticise the DCS damage model of various aircrafts are somehow right.

The question here is: Does it make any difference? The aircraft would no longer be able to fulfill its mission in either case. An aircraft bent like a banana or an aircraft which falls apart - as a pilot you are out if business in both cases.

Since there is no fatigue and no advanced damage model in DCS (for example plastic deformations which result in severe changes of flight behaviour), why on earth would one demand realistic structural failures for a single over stress event?

Apart from this, no real world fighter pilot can take advantage of the ‘absolute’ structural limit for a once in a lifetime event of his bird because the aircraft has already seen a lot of G loads during its service and is therefor pre-damaged anyway.

The approach of DCS is (and should be) to limit and penalize absurd high G pulling manoeuvres as a single event. Ripping of wings might not be the most realistic effect in all cases - but it serves the purpose.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rifter said:

Somehow I don’t understand this whole discussion.

My very first job in my career as graduated engineer was the analysis of fatigue and service life of military jets (at that time Phantom, Alpha Jet, Tornado and MiG-29).

Structural failures of a military jet due to a single over stressing event is a kind of non-issue. Snapping wings is a thing in the world of gliders or in general aviation or for the old warbirds. I’m not even aware of such a case for military jets but I don’t have a complete overview here. Structural failures of military jets are due to fatigue and not because of a single over stress event.

In case of a massive over stress of a jet as a singular event I would expect intense plastic deformations in the regions of highest loads rather than an instant desintegration effect.

Having said that it seems that those who criticise the DCS damage model of various aircrafts are somehow right.

The question here is: Does it make any difference? The aircraft would no longer be able to fulfill its mission in either case. An aircraft bent like a banana or an aircraft which falls apart - as a pilot you are out if business in both cases.

Since there is no fatigue and no advanced damage model in DCS (for example plastic deformations which result in severe changes of flight behaviour), why on earth would one demand realistic structural failures for a single over stress event?

Apart from this, no real world fighter pilot can take advantage of the ‘absolute’ structural limit for a once in a lifetime event of his bird because the aircraft has already seen a lot of G loads during its service and is therefor pre-damaged anyway.

The approach of DCS is (and should be) to limit and penalize absurd high G pulling manoeuvres as a single event. Ripping of wings might not be the most realistic effect in all cases - but it serves the purpose.

 

If every aircraft were modeled for structural failure in a consistent manner, even if it was the highly unrealistic way the F-5 is modeled now, I would tend to agree in general terms that it serves the purpose of driving gameplay behavior. 
 

However, the modeling in this area is not consistent.
 

ED claims to aim for the most realistic simulation possible, gameplay be damned so its fairly obvious this should be fixed. 

  • Like 6

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

If every aircraft were modeled for structural failure in a consistent manner, even if it was the highly unrealistic way the F-5 is modeled now, I would tend to agree in general terms that it serves the purpose of driving gameplay behavior. 
 

However, the modeling in this area is not consistent.
 

ED claims to aim for the most realistic simulation possible, gameplay be damned so its fairly obvious this should be fixed. 

D'accord!

Personally I would love to have more transparency here from ED how they model structural failure and which specific factors they consider for the different planes. Especially how they take into account the changing weight of an aircraft or how they deal with asymmetrical loads or which kind of compromise was necessary for them in case of insufficient information about the aircraft.

I remember that the F-4 had a limit of 7.33 G for a symmetrical load case with full internal fuel tanks which went up to around 8.5 G (I don’t remember the exact number) when half of the fuel was burned. A viable modelling of the F-4 with regards to structural limits without telling us how it is done, would probably create a lot of threads here claiming there is an erratic behaviour for the structural limit…

…intransparency creates controversy.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Quote

Interpreting the limitations to mean catastrophic failure at the first instance 1.5 times the limit is reached is an arcade version solely intended to modify gameplay.

This isn't correct. The normal flight limit load is I think +8 g, but the manuals state it is +7 g to extend the life of the airframe. Thus, if +8 g is the normal max g load limit, then the design structural load limit is +12 g (1.5 safety factor). This is an absolute limit, and something WILL break if this value is exceeded.

Fighter aircraft are not built with such large safety limits as commercial airliners. They are already very strong structures, and they are also built to be as light as possible, so they are closer to their ultimate limits.

Boeing 777 is designed for a normal max load limit of +3.5 g. The safety factor is 2.5, and the ultimate load is at +8.75 g. In testing, it broke at 154% - 4% above the design ultimate load limit.

No-one builds structures stronger than necessary as it means weight, and with aircraft, weight is the enemy.

If the sim is breaking things at +12 g, I'd say this is OK because you've already grossly exceeded the operating limit.


Edited by Tiger-II

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-4s could and did pull 12g in Vietnam while pulling out of dive bomb attacks and evading SAMs. They did not disintegrate and flew home. They didn't fly the next day, and in many cases never flew again. F-4s that never exceeded load limits but flew extended hours during Vietnam were falling apart by the late 70s. My friend's father was an F-4 WSO that flew in Vietnam and was still flying them out of MacDill AFB in 1977-1979. He commented that nearly every single flight, rivets popped on every aircraft he was aboard.

On the one hand, it is rare to hear of any fighter aircraft suffering catastrophic failure due to g load (notwithstanding high hour F-15's with defective longerons snapping in two where the nose attaches to the engines). On the other hand, pilots are pretty careful to avoid exceeding limits unless it is a life or death situation. DCS doesn't have any way to penalize pilots for overstressing aircraft. Real pilots won't pull 9g any more than they have to, either, because it results in rapid exhaustion and a risk of gloc.

The main point of this thread is that the F-5, unlike all other aircraft in DCS, was shedding its wings pretty darn easy. The F-5 was a fairly sturdy aircraft compared to many others. Its history would indicate that it wasn't any more likely and perhaps even less likely than other aircraft to shed its wings. If other aircraft wings aren't modeled the same way, why single out the F-5?

One other comment: I have quite a few hours in the F-5. I think I have shed my wings once since the failure was modeled. But one of the other pilots I fly with in multiplayer has a ton of hours in the F-5 and he had shed wings more than once when this was first implemented.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, streakeagle said:

On the one hand, it is rare to hear of any fighter aircraft suffering catastrophic failure due to g load (notwithstanding high hour F-15's with defective longerons snapping in two where the nose attaches to the engines).

There was at least one F-100 that folded in mid air in SEA during a bombing run (with initiated it's IRAN-programme). Fatigue related.

And there was at least one F-104G that folded during a practice bombing run at Gila Bend Range, initating a complete re-calculation of the fleet's fatigue life. Turned out, Lockheed had used too low numbers in their fatigue-life assumptions.

At least one F-8 popped it's wing due to fatigue and laissez-faire concerning over-g'ing airframes.

That's just crashes I know from the top of my head.

 


Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Like 1

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

There was at least one F-100 that folded in mid air in SEA during a bombing run (with initiated it's IRAN-programme). Fatigue related.

And there was at least one F-104G that folded during a practice bombing run at Gila Bend Range, initating a complete re-calculation of the fleet's fatigue life. Turned out, Lockheed had used too low numbers in their fatigue-life assumptions.

At least one F-8 popped it's wing due to fatigue and laissez-faire concerning over-g'ing airframes.

That's just crashes I know from the top of my head.

 

 

If we were flying fatigued aircraft, this would be relevant. However, we aren't except for the F-5 apparently.

I do not disagree that pulling an excessive amount of G force would damage the airframe permanently and would contribute to premature failure at some point in the future.

Metal fatigue is a thing. Metal fatigue occurs over many cycles. It is difficult to break metal in a single cycle.

Single event catastrophic failure is generally not a thing with airplanes unless they were previously damaged.

So if we are being issued an old, worn out F-5 that hasn't been subject to fatigue inspections, then yes, catastrophic failure from a single event should be possible.

However, if the assumption is that the jet is fresh off the production line, it should be difficult to snap the wings off on the first go.

Again, why are only a few modules given this treatment? If this is the most realistic treatment of structural failure, why isn't applied to every module?


Edited by =475FG= Dawger
  • Like 1

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Challenge accepted. I have most fixed-wing modules, so I'm going to spend a few hours breaking them all.

I've seen many sim pilots flying and they literally "yank and bank". Smooth flying doesn't come naturally to some people, and it is something that needs to be learned. It's highly likely it's the way they're handling the aircraft.

Instantaneous g forces are a thing in DCS, so if you suddenly pull the stick back, even if the sustained g would be at the limit for that speed, altitude, and stick deflection, the sudden onset can be what is breaking things.

I flew the F-86 and F-16 last night and was not exactly gentle nor strictly observing the limitations (the joys of simming) but I still handle the controls like I'm flying IRL and neither of them came to harm after being thrown around the sky. I'm totally convinced I should have shed the wing tanks of both aircraft at least once, or at the very least bent something.


Edited by Tiger-II

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-18: impossible (unless there is a way to override the FBW - I don't know how to do that). Rolling g had no effect.

JF-17: ripped off the air-to-ground stores and centerline fuel tank by flying in the wrong mode and pulling g. Pulled over +8 g but I think I lost the stores around +7.5 g (consistent with F-5 test). Aircraft otherwise intact and flying normally. Rolling g had no effect.

F-5: pulled the wings off with max bomb payload (AIM-9P, Mk 82, and Mk-83 on the wings) and pulling +7.65 g. Pull was smooth but fairly rapid (~2 g/sec onset). Required dive to 500 kts to achieve otherwise it bled speed before the g could build. Rolling g had no effect.

A-10C II: aircraft stalls before excessive g can build. Aircraft dived in hard turns to try and maximize g loads but couldn't exceed approx. +6 g. Rolling g had no effect.

High negative g appeared to not have any effect.


Edited by Tiger-II
  • Like 1

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

There was at least one F-100 that folded in mid air in SEA during a bombing run (with initiated it's IRAN-programme). Fatigue related.

And there was at least one F-104G that folded during a practice bombing run at Gila Bend Range, initating a complete re-calculation of the fleet's fatigue life. Turned out, Lockheed had used too low numbers in their fatigue-life assumptions.

At least one F-8 popped it's wing due to fatigue and laissez-faire concerning over-g'ing airframes.

That's just crashes I know from the top of my head.

 

 

I didn't say never, just very rare. Of over 5,000 produced, 200 F-4's were lost in Vietnam to departing controlled flight because they had stability issues at high AoA. I have never once read of an F-4 lost to pulling so many g's that a wing fell off despite having read many accounts of F-4's pulling about 12g during the same kind of situations that led to departing controlled flight: dodging SAMs and pulling out of dives to avoid hitting the ground. How many F-5s were produced from F-5A to F-5E or to increase the sample size, include the T-38 and F-20? How many incidents of the wings failing have been documented? I have no idea, but have never read of even structural deformation in any F-5 pilot accounts. What that means is that the incident rate is low enough if any occurred at all, that it didn't fold like a paper airplane every time someone pulled the stick or it would have been labeled a "widow maker" and attacked by the press. So, to be fair, all DCS aircraft should use a similar model for determining when structural failure occurs based on documentation or else aircraft that had similar design limits in reality will have very different limits in a game that is supposed to tend toward as much realism as possible.

Since there is really no in-game incentive to prevent simulator pilots from pulling loads that most real pilots would almost never intentionally pull, I can see the value of making aircraft more fragile than reality to keep people honest -- but all aircraft need to be bound by the same rules, not randomly make some aircraft break at the touch of the stick while others pull insanely high loads with no penalty at all.


Edited by streakeagle
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, streakeagle said:

I didn't say never, just very rare. Of over 5,000 produced, 200 F-4's were lost in Vietnam to departing controlled flight because they had stability issues at high AoA. I have never once read of an F-4 lost to pulling so many g's that a wing fell off despite having read many accounts of F-4's pulling about 12g during the same kind of situations that led to departing controlled flight: dodging SAMs and pulling out of dives to avoid hitting the ground.

I havent read "many accounts of F-4s pulling 12gs", but I have read one of an iranian F-4 pulling 11g and it broke the fwd engine mounts, so they were limping home. The Sageburner crash unfolded at about 12g and diverging - that thing literally turned to confetti in heartbeat.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/21305-history-hour-operation-sage-burner-crash

IIRC there was at least one Navy F-4 that broke in two along it's keel during a normal landing d/t fatuigue.

  • Like 1

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edited my post above to add A-10C II information.

More aircraft failing during not-excessive high g maneuvers:

 

Vampire (supersonic climb, 1952): 

 

 

F-14A (supersonic fly-by followed by high-g turn). Officially the engine disintegrated, but the timing of it is intriguing to say the least. 

 

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
On 11/10/2022 at 6:45 PM, grimm862 said:

… but worth having to stop people from gaming too hard.

If that’s the case then the pendulum has swung too far. In my experience, and I do own all the jet modules, no plane in DCS breaks it’s wings as easily as the F-5


Edited by Cab
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2022 at 6:50 PM, Tiger-II said:

Edited my post above to add A-10C II information.

More aircraft failing during not-excessive high g maneuvers:

 

Vampire (supersonic climb, 1952): 

 

 

F-14A (supersonic fly-by followed by high-g turn). Officially the engine disintegrated, but the timing of it is intriguing to say the least. 

 

On the F-14 G limits, according to an interview with the Chief Engineer, the plane was only designed for 9G in the dogfight configuration, which only included 4 Sparrow and 4 Sidewinder missiles, as well as a reduced fuel load. 

It was not designed to handle 9Gs with a full fuel and any Phoenix load. 

Second, because it uses elevons for roll control at full sweep, the roll force twists in the same location as the pitching force. As I understand it, that plane was especially easy to get into that type of trouble with. 

I believe this was the interview where the designer talks about the G limits: 

https://youtu.be/SsUCixAeZ0A

 

The comment about rolling while under G's overloading the spine was on an interview with one of the F-14's test pilots, but the group that interviewed him escapes my memory. Might have been Aircrew Interview #026 with Kurt Schroeder on testing the F-14?

 

On a side note ACI #21 does have an account of Jeff Fellmeth's emergency landing in an F-15E where they blow wildly past a large number of failure thresholds on the travel pod (among other things), and it just stays on like nothing had happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...