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

[PawlaczGMD]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

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. 

 

For real, this experience makes me want to never touch the F-5 again. I lost two likely kills in a  row because I just exploded mid-air like an a**hole. I will either only fly the Mig-21 in MP, or just buy the F-4. Even in SP campaign, the Mig performance makes me want to give up sometimes.

[NineLine]

On 11/19/2023 at 4:04 AM, PawlaczGMD said:

For real, this experience makes me want to never touch the F-5 again. I lost two likely kills in a  row because I just exploded mid-air like an a**hole. I will either only fly the Mig-21 in MP, or just buy the F-4. Even in SP campaign, the Mig performance makes me want to give up sometimes.

Please supply a new track if you think you are seeing issues. We can recheck once again. 

[Oldcrow Jr. 62]

I believe that the F-5 is limited to 7.5G's otherwise structural damage can occur. It's not a 7.5 G or higher turn fighter. I think there is a mention of this in the Manual. Nineline can confirm this if he can. But there is a maneuver limitation on sustained and instantaneous G's allowed.

 

[PawlaczGMD]

3 minutes ago, Oldcrow Jr. 62 said:

I believe that the F-5 is limited to 7.5G's otherwise structural damage can occur. It's not a 7.5 G or higher turn fighter. I think there is a mention of this in the Manual. Nineline can confirm this if he can. But there is a maneuver limitation on sustained and instantaneous G's allowed.

 

All fighters have a "soft" G-limit around 6.5-7.5 G, but it's more of a "don't exceed if you don't need to, it will shorten the lifespan and cause problems over many years" limit. But such stress damage is not modelled in DCS, and all other fighters can exceed it "safely" by a few Gs. E.g. the F-18 has a 7.5 G limit too, but will not snap. Flying the F-14 now, the stress limit is only 6.5 G, but the plane can pull 10 G without breaking apart - no problem.  I've only ever snapped other planes by doing something really stupid, but in the F-5, it happens much easier. I will try to get back into it and see if it's still the case.

[NineLine]

I don't think it's helpful to compare different airframes. Send me tracks of it breaking when it shouldn't and I will take it to the team again if there is an issue.

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

I don't think it's helpful to compare different airframes. Send me tracks of it breaking when it shouldn't and I will take it to the team again if there is an issue.

@NineLine

Please, define "when it shouldn't" because that is the crux of the issue. If catastrophic structural failure at precisely 1.5 times the G limit is the intended behavior, then it does precisely that. 

The issue is there is absolutely no evidence that it should fail at this G level the very first time it is achieved. The aircraft was tested to this ultimate load without failure as posted previously.

 

If that is NOT the intended behavior, I will happily supply tracks of such failures.

 

Separately, the wing will experience catastrophic structural failure if any aileron is used at high G levels while the limitations only prohibit full aileron application at high G.
 

Again, if the intended behavior is for catastrophic wing failure with minimal aileron input during high G maneuver, then it does precisely that.

 

If that is NOT the intended behavior, I will happily supply tracks of such failures.

 

However, myself and others have submitted tracks regarding these issues in the over two year history of this and have been told it is the intended behavior.

Without some sort of statement to the contrary, more tracks demonstrating that the wings do indeed depart the aircraft at 1.5 times the G limit and snap off when aileron is input at high G only to be told that is the intended behavior would be a waste of time and effort.

 

[Cab]

17 hours ago, NineLine said:

I don't think it's helpful to compare different airframes. Send me tracks of it breaking when it shouldn't and I will take it to the team again if there is an issue.

 

On 5/25/2023 at 10:45 AM, Cab said:

Here you go.

 

F-5 wing demo.trk 271.12 kB · 24 downloads

Even ignoring the wings snapping below 10g, the bigger problem is how easy it is to reach those g levels. Something in the code is making the ailerons way too sensitive compared to control stick input. Such a setup in real life would make the jet unflyable.  

Edited January 2 by Cab

[Volator]

1 hour ago, Cab said:

 

Even ignoring the wings snapping below 10g, the bigger problem is how easy it is to reach those g levels. Something in the code is making the ailerons way too sensitive compared to control stick input. Such a setup in real life would make the jet unflyable.  

 

You might mean elevator control when referring to insane g-onset, right? I couldn't agree more. Stick forces at high speeds seem to be totally ignored, same with F-86. Both are over-g'ed way too easy. Aerges implemented a much better way of simulating stick forces with the F1.

[Cab]

13 minutes ago, Volator said:

You might mean elevator control when referring to insane g-onset, right? I couldn't agree more. Stick forces at high speeds seem to be totally ignored, same with F-86. Both are over-g'ed way too easy. Aerges implemented a much better way of simulating stick forces with the F1.

Yes, exactly. Pitch input is the issue.

Thanks

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, Cab said:

 

Even ignoring the wings snapping below 10g, the bigger problem is how easy it is to reach those g levels. Something in the code is making the ailerons way too sensitive compared to control stick input. Such a setup in real life would make the jet unflyable.  

 

Something regarding pitch input in the F-5 is pretty strange. Its almost as if G is tied to an algorithm using stick position and speed as input values. You can spike very high G in the F-5E with little or no nose movement, which isn't how it works IRL. G onset is always delayed and concurrent with nose rate.

I think this has always existed in the F-5 FM but the change to structural failure modeling has made it very apparent and a serious issue.

[WTFCSon]

I really haven't had an issue with any of this. It takes a little bit of learning, but once you get a feel for that threshold it is very difficult to snap the wings unless you're doing something you really shouldn't be. While I won't argue about the accuracy to real life (I've never flown a fast jet), this isn't an "issue" that's hard to avoid.

[Cab]

2 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Something regarding pitch input in the F-5 is pretty strange. Its almost as if G is tied to an algorithm using stick position and speed as input values. You can spike very high G in the F-5E with little or no nose movement, which isn't how it works IRL. G onset is always delayed and concurrent with nose rate.

I think this has always existed in the F-5 FM but the change to structural failure modeling has made it very apparent and a serious issue.

Maybe. But what do I know. Apparently I can't remember the difference between ailerons and elevators. 

However, I could live with the wings snapping at 10g, as unrealistic as it probably is, if I had reasonable control of the elevators.

[=475FG= Dawger]

24 minutes ago, WTFCSon said:

I really haven't had an issue with any of this. It takes a little bit of learning, but once you get a feel for that threshold it is very difficult to snap the wings unless you're doing something you really shouldn't be. While I won't argue about the accuracy to real life (I've never flown a fast jet), this isn't an "issue" that's hard to avoid.

This is probably true in SP but in MP versus real humans, its quite a problem. While we have learned to minimize the occurrence somewhat, it still happens doing things that are quite normal for jet BFM. 

Coming off a guns pass is a great way to pop a wing off as it involves a sharp application of elevator and a bit of roll. Sure fire way to eject the wings in the F-5 but if you aren't skilled enough to get a lot of short range guns shot opportunities, it won't be a problem.

We have also learned to turn off the automatic flaps system as this will generate a wing failure in a steady state high G turn. If you leave the auto system on, you can get set in a constant G turn and as you slow through 320KIAS the flaps schedule and pop the wings off.

The other situation that generates wing ejection events are high speed knife fights against Mig-29's (and the occasional skilled F1 pilot). If the Mig-29 pilot is smart enough to keep his speed and G high and introduce any sort of third dimension to the fight by initiating even a minor barrel roll/rolling scissors, the F-5 will eject its wings if you breath on the ailerons.

Again, if you die at the merge against a well flown Mig-29, you will never experience this.

Over a year ago, a squad mate who was flying the F/A-18 in the real world at the time and is one of the best BFM pilots I ever met in 25 years of doing this, made an interesting comment after popping his wings off yet again in the F-5.

"No fighter pilot would fly a fighter he is scared of"

Another who flew jet BFM in the real world for over 20 years (and is very good at it as well) has thousands of disparaging comments regarding this subject but it boils down to much the same sentiment. No one would fly something that behaved like the current F-5 if their life depended on it.

I have seen many versions of the implication that all I need to do is "git gud" and while I do firmly believe that every defeat in air combat can be traced back to the skill or decision of the defeated pilot, in this case, the poor decision is to try to fly the F-5 against other humans not limited by rather arbitrary catastrophic structural failure.

Edited January 2 by =475FG= Dawger

[WTFCSon]

5 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

This is probably true in SP but in MP versus real humans, its quite a problem. While we have learned to minimize the occurrence somewhat, it still happens doing things that are quite normal for jet BFM. 

Coming off a guns pass is a great way to pop a wing off as it involves a sharp application of elevator and a bit of roll. Sure fire way to eject the wings in the F-5 but if you aren't skilled enough to get a lot of short range guns shot opportunities, it won't be a problem.

We have also learned to turn off the automatic flaps system as this will generate a wing failure in a steady state high G turn. If you leave the auto system on, you can get set in a constant G turn and as you slow through 320KIAS the flaps schedule and pop the wings off.

The other situation that generates wing ejection events are high speed knife fights against Mig-29's (and the occasional skilled F1 pilot). If the Mig-29 pilot is smart enough to keep his speed and G high and introduce any sort of third dimension to the fight by initiating even a minor barrel roll/rolling scissors, the F-5 will eject its wings if you breath on the ailerons.

Again, if you die at the merge against a well flown Mig-29, you will never experience this.

Over a year ago, a squad mate who was flying the F/A-18 in the real world at the time and is one of the best BFM pilots I ever met in 25 years of doing this, made an interesting comment after popping his wings off yet again in the F-5.

"No fighter pilot would fly a fighter he is scared of"

Another who flew jet BFM in the real world for over 20 years (and is very good at it as well) has thousands of disparaging comments regarding this subject but it boils down to much the same sentiment. No one would fly something that behaved like the current F-5 if their life depended on it.

I have seen many versions of the implication that all I need to do is "git gud" and while I do firmly believe that every defeat in air combat can be traced back to the skill or decision of the defeated pilot, in this case, the poor decision is to try to fly the F-5 against other humans not limited by rather arbitrary catastrophic structural failure.

 

I've flown in MP servers, again haven't had an issue. Who's the 20 year pilot you're talking about? I'd love to see his comments.

[WTFCSon]

Just to clarify, I’m not asking you to DOX anyone, just wondering if they have videos or posts on the forum I can checkout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hobel]

Am 5.9.2023 um 01:19 schrieb 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 36.11 kB · 13 Downloads Lower speed pull_One wingtip launcher rail ripped off.trk 38.95 kB · 11 Downloads

So rather observers of the thing I would emphasize the report here again, in which Flappie shows well where the problem comes from

[=475FG= Dawger]

12 minutes ago, WTFCSon said:

Just to clarify, I’m not asking you to DOX anyone, just wondering if they have videos or posts on the forum I can checkout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Neither does either. Nothing to be gained and much to be lost for them. Me, on the other hand, have no such considerations.

I flew in the civilian world for 30 years including a lot of aerobatics and some mock combat but I haven't flown an F-5 in air to air BFM.

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

This is probably true in SP but in MP versus real humans, its quite a problem. While we have learned to minimize the occurrence somewhat, it still happens doing things that are quite normal for jet BFM. 

Coming off a guns pass is a great way to pop a wing off as it involves a sharp application of elevator and a bit of roll. Sure fire way to eject the wings in the F-5 but if you aren't skilled enough to get a lot of short range guns shot opportunities, it won't be a problem.

We have also learned to turn off the automatic flaps system as this will generate a wing failure in a steady state high G turn. If you leave the auto system on, you can get set in a constant G turn and as you slow through 320KIAS the flaps schedule and pop the wings off.

The other situation that generates wing ejection events are high speed knife fights against Mig-29's (and the occasional skilled F1 pilot). If the Mig-29 pilot is smart enough to keep his speed and G high and introduce any sort of third dimension to the fight by initiating even a minor barrel roll/rolling scissors, the F-5 will eject its wings if you breath on the ailerons.

Again, if you die at the merge against a well flown Mig-29, you will never experience this.

Over a year ago, a squad mate who was flying the F/A-18 in the real world at the time and is one of the best BFM pilots I ever met in 25 years of doing this, made an interesting comment after popping his wings off yet again in the F-5.

"No fighter pilot would fly a fighter he is scared of"

Another who flew jet BFM in the real world for over 20 years (and is very good at it as well) has thousands of disparaging comments regarding this subject but it boils down to much the same sentiment. No one would fly something that behaved like the current F-5 if their life depended on it.

I have seen many versions of the implication that all I need to do is "git gud" and while I do firmly believe that every defeat in air combat can be traced back to the skill or decision of the defeated pilot, in this case, the poor decision is to try to fly the F-5 against other humans not limited by rather arbitrary catastrophic structural failure.

 

Where are your tracks please, we can discuss this all day long but you need to include tracks. If it happens so easily for you, you should be able to recreate it easily as well.

The more tracks I have the better chance we will have catching an issue if one exists. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

26 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Where are your tracks please, we can discuss this all day long but you need to include tracks. If it happens so easily for you, you should be able to recreate it easily as well.

The more tracks I have the better chance we will have catching an issue if one exists. 

I will produce some new tracks but if your response is "you are pulling a lot of G" my head will explode. Give me a few days.

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I will produce some new tracks but if your response is "you are pulling a lot of G" my head will explode. Give me a few days.

Thanks

[Hobel]

vor 45 Minuten schrieb =475FG= Dawger:

I will produce some new tracks but if your response is "you are pulling a lot of G" my head will explode. Give me a few days.

Is this the right test method?

8.5

8.7G break

 

F5 Break .trk

Edited January 2 by Hobel

[NineLine]

17 minutes ago, Hobel said:

Is this the right test method?

8.5

8.7G break

 

 

F5 Break .trk 54.32 kB · 0 downloads

 

You are rolling as well which decreases the max allowed Gs, just to take note. 

In a 500kn dive I can pull 10Gs 3 times before breaking the wings this is well over the max of 7.33 for a clean jet. 

Do we have evidence that this aircraft normally pulls 9-10Gs with no issues?

7.33 Sym G and 5.8 for roll entry G. 

[Cab]

9 minutes ago, NineLine said:

You are rolling as well which decreases the max allowed Gs, just to take note. 

In a 500kn dive I can pull 10Gs 3 times before breaking the wings this is well over the max of 7.33 for a clean jet. 

Do we have evidence that this aircraft normally pulls 9-10Gs with no issues?

7.33 Sym G and 5.8 for roll entry G. 

Again, it’s not just the g force, but the small amount of stick movement required to spike it at high speed. But you’re are clearly flying the jet and don’t see anything wrong with it. And I assume no one else at ED sees anything wrong either. Since that’s the case, I can’t believe any amount of tracks will change anything  

I really hate to rant, but at this point this just feels like a waste of time.

[NineLine]

Just now, Cab said:

Again, it’s not just the g force, but the small amount of stick movement required to spike it at high speed. But you’re are clearly flying the jet and don’t see anything wrong with it. And I assume no one else at ED sees anything wrong either. Since that’s the case, I can’t believe any amount of tracks will change anything  

I really hate to rant, but at this point this just feels like a waste of time.

DO you use curves at all? I mean I looked at your track as well, and you were in a 600+ knot G dive and pulled 10G and snapped the wings, I am not sure I disagree with those results. I am excited for us to have a better wing bend damage model, but in this case you probably would have suffered damage to stores or ailerons before 10G. 

I am sorry you are frustrated but I am trying to figure out what is expected, they would not limit the jet to 7.33 clean if you could easily pull more without fault. 

[NineLine]

@Cab I also opened your track in the mission editor and cut the fuel load from 100% to 50% and this was the result

 

11G and no break.