correct as-is Concerns about G-Onset and Damage to wings

[FoxAlfa]

What is lacking and needs improvement in DCS, isn't that you can destroy the plane by over G, 

Its that plane should give way more feedback both visual, tactile and audio that you are doing that.

[=475FG= Dawger]

55 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

Have ALL F-15 or large amount done 12.5g and survived?

No, because Good pilots Don't do that because people who actually DESIGNED the plane told them not to do that since it will DAMAGE the plane! And there are plenty exemples of planes being damaged from over G.

Pushing any aircraft beyond its design limits that far no matter the reason, is BAD airmanship and having surived is just as much luck as anything else.

As such represent a very small set of case that can't be used as rule. 

All in all in DCS you CAN do 12G, under almost all circumstances.

You literally have to full Drop tanks and go very fast, and pull 10-11+ G to brake your wings in Eagle C, and sorry but that is on 100% on the pilot.

 

 

If you bother to study the documents available in this and other threads regarding this issue, you would find that the structural testing programs that simulate the expected stresses assume quite a large number of high G excursions. 
 

For example, the F-5, it was assumed 9 G would be exceeded approximately 160 times per 4000 hours. 
 

For the F-15, 12+ G is going to be a bit less often but 9 G is common in the F-15C and F-15 and  its not far from 9 G to 12 G when the adrenaline is flowing.

Its going to happen a lot more than you think. 
 

As a real world fighter pilot friend said recently after breaking the wings off a DCS F-5 in a normal guns reposition

 “ No one would fly a fighter they are scared of “

That sums it up. If the wings cracked off during normal BFM on a regular basis, the aircraft would have been long retired instead serving for 5 plus decades  

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by =475FG= Dawger

[Braunn]

Shame the wing breaking is still there. It's a neat fighter and great fun but tbh the wings breaking turned me away from it. It is obvious it's not even close to being realistic. I agree 100% no air force would use that jet if the wings were that brittle in real life. USAF sure as hell wouldnt still be using it for red air. 

[Flappie]

I agree.

I recently read all 430 ASN reports about F-5 aircraft losses: there is not a single report mentioning the loss of wings. The most common cause of loss was collisions (with birds, with the surface, or with another aircraft), the second was engine failure. There's a few unexplained crashes, especially above water, but nothing pointed to a wing loss scenario.

In comparison, 3 out of 56 ASN reports about Saab 37 Viggen losses mention ripped off wings as the direct cause of the loss. This aircraft wings structure were then redesigned, which put an end to Viggen ripped off wings incidents.

All this data tells me that the F-5 was definitely not prone to wing loss.

I said earlier that DCS F-5 wings breaking at 10G was to be expected (it's RL manual says not to exceed 7.5G), but since all other DCS aircraft wings don't break so easily, there's clearly a problem with this module, and it must be found. I'll see what I can do to prove our point to devs.

Source:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/F5

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/SB37

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, Flappie said:

I agree.

I recently read all 430 ASN reports about F-5 aircraft losses: there is not a single report mentioning the loss of wings. The most common cause of loss was collisions (with birds, with the surface, or with another aircraft), the second was engine failure. There's a few unexplained crashes, especially above water, but nothing pointed to a wing loss scenario.

In comparison, 3 out of 56 ASN reports about Saab 37 Viggen losses mention ripped off wings as the direct cause of the loss. This aircraft wings structure were then redesigned, which put an end to Viggen ripped off wings incidents.

All this data tells me that the F-5 was definitely not prone to wing loss.

I said earlier that DCS F-5 wings breaking at 10G was to be expected (it's RL manual says not to exceed 7.5G), but since all other DCS aircraft wings don't break so easily, there's clearly a problem with this module, and it must be found. I'll see what I can do to prove our point to devs.

Source:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/F5

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/SB37

Thank you for your effort. I hope you succeed. 

[Cab]

3 hours ago, Flappie said:

I agree.

I recently read all 430 ASN reports about F-5 aircraft losses: there is not a single report mentioning the loss of wings. The most common cause of loss was collisions (with birds, with the surface, or with another aircraft), the second was engine failure. There's a few unexplained crashes, especially above water, but nothing pointed to a wing loss scenario.

In comparison, 3 out of 56 ASN reports about Saab 37 Viggen losses mention ripped off wings as the direct cause of the loss. This aircraft wings structure were then redesigned, which put an end to Viggen ripped off wings incidents.

All this data tells me that the F-5 was definitely not prone to wing loss.

I said earlier that DCS F-5 wings breaking at 10G was to be expected (it's RL manual says not to exceed 7.5G), but since all other DCS aircraft wings don't break so easily, there's clearly a problem with this module, and it must be found. I'll see what I can do to prove our point to devs.

Source:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/F5

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/SB37

Just want to tell you, good luck. We're all counting on you.

[MAXsenna]

Thanks @Flappie

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[HWasp]

While I have to agree, that wings might break way too easy, and it might not be realistic as it currently is, what would be a more realistic way to punish people for ignoring the limits and abusing their "single use" throw away plane constantly?

While simply breaking the wings at a fixed 1,5x limit G is simplistic, that is the legal limit, and it has the right not to withstand more abuse, even though IRL it would survive as it is over engineered for obvious reasons.

There are many factors here, like lack of feedback, lack of control forces, so there are no perfect answers to this, but is it surely the correct way to go for a study sim to allow people to pull 13 Gs on a 7,xG plane every single time in practice, just because on the handful of IRL overG situations it did not break? This also paints a wrong picture. 

I'd much prefer a more complex model with random cumulative damage, not just a simple G=x you loose wings for sure, but I think limitations should be still enforced.

That being said, I think the current model is not that horrible, it really just needs a bit of attention and practice. Honestly, I don't even remember the last time I lost a wing during a merge. (I drop the tanks in time though, not trying to go for it with 3 bags:) )

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 minute ago, HWasp said:

While I have to agree, that wings might break way too easy, and it might not be realistic as it currently is, what would be a more realistic way to punish people for ignoring the limits and abusing their "single use" throw away plane constantly?

While simply breaking the wings at a fixed 1,5x limit G is simplistic, that is the legal limit, and it has the right not to withstand more abuse, even though IRL it would survive as it is over engineered for obvious reasons.

There are many factors here, like lack of feedback, lack of control forces, so there are no perfect answers to this, but is it surely the correct way to go for a study sim to allow people to pull 13 Gs on a 7,xG plane every single time in practice, just because on the handful of IRL overG situations it did not break? This also paints a wrong picture. 

I'd much prefer a more complex model with random cumulative damage, not just a simple G=x you loose wings for sure, but I think limitations should be still enforced.

That being said, I think the current model is not that horrible, it really just needs a bit of attention and practice. Honestly, I don't even remember the last time I lost a wing during a merge. (I drop the tanks in time though, not trying to go for it with 3 bags:) )

While I am not in favor of catastrophic failure at the precise published limit, if it were to be applied, it MUST be applied in the same manner across ALL modules without exception. 
 

Of course, my perspective is that of a PvP player in MP. 
 

 

[HWasp]

16 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

While I am not in favor of catastrophic failure at the precise published limit, if it were to be applied, it MUST be applied in the same manner across ALL modules without exception. 
 

Of course, my perspective is that of a PvP player in MP. 
 

 

I agree, these things should be standardized.

Best option imo would be an increasing chance of catastrophic failure + cumulative damage further increasing that chance if multiple exceedences happen. 

The F-5 specifically could use a special control option, that would decrease stick sensitivity as speed increases to aid people flying without force feedback, stick extensions etc. (like the ARU in the MiG-21)

Edited August 20, 2023 by HWasp

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

While I have to agree, that wings might break way too easy, and it might not be realistic as it currently is, what would be a more realistic way to punish people for ignoring the limits and abusing their "single use" throw away plane constantly?

There's no realistic way to punish them, and you shouldn't try.  You're not flying a realistic scenario, but your aircraft is supposed to be simulated as realistically as it can be.  For everything else, there's WarThunder - I mean MasterCard

The idea here is that you're not going to maintain an airframe in-game realistically anyway, even if there was a campaign where you could accumulate fatigue and lose the airframe to it, how hard you use it up would have more to do with the intensity of the campaign than anything else.

In the game though you just get a new airframe every single time.   I doubt this will change.

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

I'd much prefer a more complex model with random cumulative damage, not just a simple G=x you loose wings for sure, but I think limitations should be still enforced.

That being said, I think the current model is not that horrible, it really just needs a bit of attention and practice. Honestly, I don't even remember the last time I lost a wing during a merge. (I drop the tanks in time though, not trying to go for it with 3 bags:) )

I haven't been able to break it so far so I'm not sure what's going on either.  Admittedly I didn't try very hard, but I yanked 10G until GLOC and the needle indicated that this is what I maxed out at.  I did it more than one in a row and the wings didn't break - so I think what we need is some output from the game, even if just in the log, to tell us that we're fatiguing the airframe and how much, and/or a record of this in the debrief you see after you exit the mission.  This would probably help identify where exactly all this breakage is happening.

Edited August 20, 2023 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

@BIGNEWY @NineLine are we allowed to post parts from the F-5E-1 here?  It's from August 1978.

[GGTharos]

9 hours ago, Flappie said:

I said earlier that DCS F-5 wings breaking at 10G was to be expected (it's RL manual says not to exceed 7.5G), but since all other DCS aircraft wings don't break so easily, there's clearly a problem with this module, and it must be found. I'll see what I can do to prove our point to devs.

Consider that there might not be a problem:  People are flying with combat loads, exceeding 6g (or having a higher than allowable entry g for a loaded roll, which results in higher g due to roll coupling) - and slowly fatiguing their aircraft.  They then break the aircraft an 'unexpectedly low g'.   But there could also be other issues as well.  This is why fatigue output into the debrief would be great - log it as if taking damage.

[HWasp]

51 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

There's no realistic way to punish them, and you shouldn't try.  You're not flying a realistic scenario, but your aircraft is supposed to be simulated as realistically as it can be.  For everything else, there's WarThunder - I mean MasterCard

The idea here is that you're not going to maintain an airframe in-game realistically anyway, even if there was a campaign where you could accumulate fatigue and lose the airframe to it, how hard you use it up would have more to do with the intensity of the campaign than anything else.

In the game though you just get a new airframe every single time.   I doubt this will change.

I haven't been able to break it so far so I'm not sure what's going on either.  Admittedly I didn't try very hard, but I yanked 10G until GLOC and the needle indicated that this is what I maxed out at.  I did it more than one in a row and the wings didn't break - so I think what we need is some output from the game, even if just in the log, to tell us that we're fatiguing the airframe and how much, and/or a record of this in the debrief you see after you exit the mission.  This would probably help identify where exactly all this breakage is happening.

 

Punish might have been the wrong expression for what I meant. Provide feedback, that they are doing something wrong is better.

Is it a warthunder thing to show people, that going beyond the ultimate load limit of their aircraft is not good? Where exactly would you draw the line then? 

By cumulative damage I meant cumulative within a single flight, simple as that.

Again, I don't think it's good or realistic to simply draw a line at 1.5x and be done with it, but on the other hand it is not wrong either. Nobody will ever guarantee, what exactly happens and when exactly beyond that limit. 

 

[GGTharos]

2 minutes ago, HWasp said:

Punish might have been the wrong expression for what I meant. Provide feedback, that they are doing something wrong is better.

Is it a warthunder thing to show people, that going beyond the ultimate load limit of their aircraft is not good? Where exactly would you draw the line then? 

Sustained operations.   These don't really exist in DCS or in most flight sims.  But it's still a sim and you can get a fresh aircraft every time so you don't really get to draw a line.  Just because you don't like that they can pull 34920349g one time doesn't mean that they can't, or that this is wrong.

2 minutes ago, HWasp said:

By cumulative damage I meant cumulative within a single flight, simple as that.

This already exists.

2 minutes ago, HWasp said:

Again, I don't think it's good or realistic to simply draw a line at 1.5x and be done with it, but on the other hand it is not wrong either. Nobody will ever guarantee, what exactly happens and when exactly beyond that limit. 

Like I said, RAZBAM raised the bar here.

And again, the feedback IMHO as I suggested - log aircraft fatigue in the debrief so that people know what they've done to the aircraft and since understanding fatigue requires serious undertaking IRL I would object to having some sort of 'fatigue bar' that can be referenced during flight.

So to put it another way - if the wings breaking is the result of fatigue (this aircraft's limits would be low compared to modern fighters, so easier to fatigue), the result is correct and what's needed is feedback so that it is understood that this is the result of mistreating your aircraft.

If, on the other hand, it's the result of say wake turbulence?  Fix that stuff - wake turbulence has had issues in DCS so just turn that off.

[HWasp]

10 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Sustained operations.   These don't really exist in DCS or in most flight sims.  But it's still a sim and you can get a fresh aircraft every time so you don't really get to draw a line.  Just because you don't like that they can pull 34920349g one time doesn't mean that they can't, or that this is wrong.

This already exists.

Like I said, RAZBAM raised the bar here.

And again, the feedback IMHO as I suggested - log aircraft fatigue in the debrief so that people know what they've done to the aircraft and since understanding fatigue requires serious undertaking IRL I would object to having some sort of 'fatigue bar' that can be referenced during flight.

So to put it another way - if the wings breaking is the result of fatigue (this aircraft's limits would be low compared to modern fighters, so easier to fatigue), the result is correct and what's needed is feedback so that it is understood that this is the result of mistreating your aircraft.

If, on the other hand, it's the result of say wake turbulence?  Fix that stuff - wake turbulence has had issues in DCS so just turn that off.

Fresh aircraft does not mean it can go over it's ultimate load limit. There is simply no guarantee there. It's already 150% of the normal limit, so no, I don't like to see that happen routinely in DCS. 

If we look at it like this, it is not wrong either if the aircraft falls apart 1% over that, it has the right to do so. It's the over-engineering of the over-engineering that protects you at that point...

Again, best compromise would be to make it a bit random. 

It's good to hear that RAZBAM has those features, I'm not up to date on those, will check it out later.

[GGTharos]

24 minutes ago, HWasp said:

Fresh aircraft does not mean it can go over it's ultimate load limit. There is simply no guarantee there. It's already 150% of the normal limit, so no, I don't like to see that happen routinely in DCS. 

Well, 7.33x1.5=11g, or just under.  That's not what's being complained about.

As far as RAZBAM goes, if you over-g the F-15E hard and long enough, you bend the wings (in theory, the airframe also) and they stay that way, imposing a squirrelicious FM.

Other modules also break weapon stations etc, and it would be nice to see all of those things exist together in a module, as 'over-g' has different values for various things attached to the aircraft, or the aircraft itself.

[VZ_342]

I'd much rather find myself in a squirrelly plane, than in a wingless ball of fire heading straight into the ground.

[Sarowa]

On 8/19/2023 at 8:31 PM, FoxAlfa said:

What is lacking and needs improvement in DCS, isn't that you can destroy the plane by over G, 

Its that plane should give way more feedback both visual, tactile and audio that you are doing that.

This has always been one of my biggest complaints regarding wing rip in the f5. I'm okay with there being some kind of failure mode, but the lack of feedback as you approach the point of wing rip is very frustrating.

This feedback is something I feel Heatblur's Tomcat does well in contrast with a lot of other DCS modules. If the f5 wing rip is here to stay, I'd like to see both wing rip and approaching wing rip feedback applied consistently across all DCS modules.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Sarowa

[Flappie]

It looks like the problem comes from the wingtip launcher rails, and only them. They always get torn apart first, which causes wing structural damage, then wings eventually break if the stick is not released soon enough (or if the aircraft speed is too high).

I don't think launcher rails should be torn off like that: they don't support the whole weight of the aircraft, that's the wings job.

Issue reported. Wish me luck.

 

Very high speed pull_Wingtip launcher rails ripped off.trk Lower speed pull_One wingtip launcher rail ripped off.trk

[Cab]

2 minutes ago, Flappie said:

It looks like the problem comes from the wingtip launcher rails, and only them. They always get torn apart first, which causes wing structural damage, then wings eventually break if the stick is not released soon enough (or if the aircraft speed is too high).

I don't think launcher rails should be torn off like that: they don't support the whole weight of the aircraft, that's the wings job.

Issue reported. Wish me luck.

 

Very high speed pull_Wingtip launcher rails ripped off.trk 36.11 kB · 0 downloads Lower speed pull_One wingtip launcher rail ripped off.trk 38.95 kB · 0 downloads

Thanks for taking this on.

[=475FG= Dawger]

18 minutes ago, Flappie said:

It looks like the problem comes from the wingtip launcher rails, and only them. They always get torn apart first, which causes wing structural damage, then wings eventually break if the stick is not released soon enough (or if the aircraft speed is too high).

I don't think launcher rails should be torn off like that: they don't support the whole weight of the aircraft, that's the wings job.

Issue reported. Wish me luck.

 

Very high speed pull_Wingtip launcher rails ripped off.trk 36.11 kB · 0 downloads Lower speed pull_One wingtip launcher rail ripped off.trk 38.95 kB · 0 downloads

Good luck and thanks for looking

[Bucic]

It might be worth cross-checking against this as well since engine RPM variations seem to cause some stellar momentary accelerations on the in-game airframe. Since component loads (pylons included) are probably calculated from the general airframe kinematics the engine-related glitching may influence a whole array of other components.

 

[PawlaczGMD]

I've noticed this issue is especially bad for me in Multiplayer. I've only ripped off my wings in SP once. But I've tried flying on the cold war server yesterday, and ripped my wings two times in a row with medium-intensity maneuvering, definitely something I've done safely before. Could it be because there is only Aim-9B, not Aim-9P, available on ECW now, and the issue is caused be wingtip loading somehow?

[=475FG= Dawger]

12 hours ago, PawlaczGMD said:

I've noticed this issue is especially bad for me in Multiplayer. I've only ripped off my wings in SP once. But I've tried flying on the cold war server yesterday, and ripped my wings two times in a row with medium-intensity maneuvering, definitely something I've done safely before. Could it be because there is only Aim-9B, not Aim-9P, available on ECW now, and the issue is caused be wingtip loading somehow?

Thats a good theory and worth exploring. 
 

Personally, I think its related to mission temperature settings. Caucasus missions in ECW are much colder so the aircraft performs better and its much easier to snap the wings off. 
 

Fly with flaps set forced to UP and you will reduce the number of wing failures. 
 

You will still get silly failures if you put in the slightest aileron while pulling G. Its an obvious misread of the limitations in the manual, which only prohibits aileron application to the stop. 
 

After two years, one has to assume it is permanent. 

It sucks to fight the Mirage, with nearly identical verbiage in its manual regarding G limits, and watch it do things you can only dream of in the F-5. 

And watching the skull crushing extreme G maneuvers of the Fishbed will rob your soul of any faith in the modeling integrity of ED. 

Edited November 19, 2023 by =475FG= Dawger