Please model overspeed damage

[Cmptohocah]

Most if not 100% of the fighters in DCS (please correct me if I am wrong) are able to over speed without any consequences. In MP environment this creates a situation where many people exploit this fact. They takeoff push the max AB, get to over 150% over the aircraft speed limit shoot what ever A2A they have and then go back to base for tea and medals. I mean doing M1.5 on the deck and pulling 13G does not really seem realistic.
Anyway, this completely busts any sort of RL tactics as the A2A comes down to who's gonna accelerate fastest - not sure I saw this in any RL engagement procedures.

Could we have some sort of random damage model where things start failing as you go more over the airspeed limit?

 

[razo+r]

There are fighters with overspeed modeled but those are mostly the older airframes. 

[Tank50us]

Overspeed is also an issue for aircraft like the F-14. If the flaps are out, and the aircraft gets above a certain speed, the flaps get bent, and won't function any longer. It's annoying as all heck, but it is realistic. 

[Mordant]

Over-G does appear to be modeled on the Tomcat, Eagle, and even the Hornet and Viper(if the wings are somewhat damaged, they will snap off. If they're at a normal strength and not damaged, the FCS does regulate for the most part the maximum G-load so that they dont break)

On overspeed, I completely agree. There needs to be implementation for this. I think a possible issue may be that top speeds are one of those ticket items that just don't get released to the public too soon, it's always "Higher than Mach 2" or "Above 1300kts" which is vague and can't be put into the game as something that can destroy your aircraft. 

Overspeed is already implemented on most if not all the helos in the game. I'm a Gazelle nut, and in the Minigun you can easily go overspeed and it will break your rotors. Most notable helo with overspeed issues is the Black Shark due to its counter-rotating rotors. They do clip each other and basically self implode the rotors if you get too fast. Lastly the Hip may or may not be exempt and I'm like 95% sure the Hind has overspeed damage on the rotors.

TL;DR: Overspeed is already on helos and Over-G is for the most part modeled, but overspeed needs to be implemented on everything even if the info we get from aircraft manufacturers may be dubious or vague.

 

Smooth skies,

Mordant

Edited December 1, 2021 by Mordant
grammar n stuff

[mkellytx]

One of the big problems with exceedance of Vne is that not all aircraft fail the same, or for that matter have Vne, Vmo, etc.. set the same.  Sometimes the value is set by airframe heating of a particular part (F-111, Concorde, F-15, F-16 come to mind nose or canopy).  Other cases the value is set as a % of the velocity that will induce flutter, to muddy the waters further it's entirely possible to have one Vne set by dynamic pressure/airframe heating and have another lower value set by flutter for a particular external load configuration.  It would be difficult to model unless you know which is which...

[Cmptohocah]

21 hours ago, mkellytx said:

One of the big problems with exceedance of Vne is that not all aircraft fail the same, or for that matter have Vne, Vmo, etc.. set the same.  Sometimes the value is set by airframe heating of a particular part (F-111, Concorde, F-15, F-16 come to mind nose or canopy).  Other cases the value is set as a % of the velocity that will induce flutter, to muddy the waters further it's entirely possible to have one Vne set by dynamic pressure/airframe heating and have another lower value set by flutter for a particular external load configuration.  It would be difficult to model unless you know which is which...

From my short research:

• max Mach no. is usually limited by the canopy so I am not sure how this would be modeled
• max TAS is a structural limit and this is where it would be nice to see some mechanical failures

I agree, it's a bit difficult to pin-point what exactly for each airframe, but some random mechanical failure would be enough to keep people from exploiting this. I would imagine it being probability based, like: chances for a failure are low when you exceed the Vne just a bit, but they grow as you dive deeper into the over-speed condition. Especially if you add some Gs to it.

I guess what I am trying to say is: it doesn't really matter if the effect is ultra-realistic as long as it prevents people flying with the left hand all the way forward and the right hand all the way back at the same time and without any consequences.

[mkellytx]

22 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

From my short research:

• max Mach no. is usually limited by the canopy so I am not sure how this would be modeled
• max TAS is a structural limit and this is where it would be nice to see some mechanical failures

 

It's difficult to be doctrinaire about those, but suffices to say both can do both.  Here's a bit of a better way to think of q (dynamic pressure) and Mach limits.  Q limits down low in the thick atmosphere, while Mach limit up high in the thin atmosphere.  Max q and Vmo meet between 19,000 and 21,000 feet, I've flown flight tests where we've established Vmo above 21 kft and lower the altitude till the KIAS reach max q.  Airframe heating and flutter can get you with either Mach or q since with shockwaves you get temperature rises on the backside of the shock and shocks do all kinds of fun stuff to the loads and moments.

[GGTharos]

On 12/2/2021 at 2:47 PM, Cmptohocah said:

From my short research:

• max Mach no. is usually limited by the canopy so I am not sure how this would be modeled
• max TAS is a structural limit and this is where it would be nice to see some mechanical failures

If you really want to know:

• The canopy won't be destroyed but it will deform and will have to be replaced simply because the view out of it will be distorted.
• On the F-15, the limitation at M2.5 is that of the engine - the manual limits it to 1 minute but the reality is that you can run much longer depending on how much you're willing to shorten the engine life.  The canopy is also likely to be suffering at this time.

The Airspeed (it's not TAS, it's indicated - ie. the speed that the instruments inform the pilot, and the speed that the aircraft 'feels') limitation should cause the following sorts of things: 

• Delamination or disintegration of vertical stabilizer root or leading edge, possibly leading to disintegration of that stabilizer (with follow on problems like excessive yaw at supersonic speeds, which will result in the aircraft disintegrating)
• Disintegration or removal of certain control surfaces like ailerons depending on amount of deflection into that airstream
• Maybe some aerodynamic effects but those are ????

 

On 12/2/2021 at 2:47 PM, Cmptohocah said:

I guess what I am trying to say is: it doesn't really matter if the effect is ultra-realistic as long as it prevents people flying with the left hand all the way forward and the right hand all the way back at the same time and without any consequences.

Unlike over-g consequences, overspeed in the airspeed region may yield immediate disintegration and these happened IRL.

Edited December 7, 2021 by GGTharos

[Cmptohocah]

3 hours ago, GGTharos said:

...

The Airspeed (it's not TAS, it's indicated - ie. the speed that the instruments inform the pilot, and the speed that the aircraft 'feels') limitation should cause the following sorts of things: 

...

 

Real Fulcrum manual mentions true air speed at high altitude as the Vne, truth be told they are using IAS for the low altitude limitation.

[GGTharos]

46 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Real Fulcrum manual mentions true air speed at high altitude as the Vne, truth be told they are using IAS for the low altitude limitation.

TAS makes no sense here IMHO.  But I could easily be wrong, I think those jets read out TAS for you in certain modes.

Edited December 7, 2021 by GGTharos

[Nodak]

CAS, TAS takes in account wind drift which can be quite substantial at altitude, so no good for a limitation.

[Cmptohocah]

2 hours ago, Nodak said:

CAS, TAS takes in account wind drift which can be quite substantial at altitude, so no good for a limitation.

Isn't CAS compensating for air frame interference with the Pitot tube and TAS compensating for the decrease in air density?

[razo+r]

16 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Isn't CAS compensating for air frame interference with the Pitot tube and TAS compensating for the decrease in air density?

Yes. Only GS takes wind into account.

[mkellytx]

On 12/7/2021 at 12:22 PM, GGTharos said:

If you really want to know:

• The canopy won't be destroyed but it will deform and will have to be replaced simply because the view out of it will be distorted.
• On the F-15, the limitation at M2.5 is that of the engine - the manual limits it to 1 minute but the reality is that you can run much longer depending on how much you're willing to shorten the engine life.  The canopy is also likely to be suffering at this time.

FWIW one of my old colleagues was the F-15 CTF commander back in the 70's.  The nickname for the airframe used for high speed tests was "Patches", because there were so many patched cracks in the the inlets...  Apparently, sustained high Mach flight wasn't very kind to the airframe.