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

[ElvisDaKang]

Don't Sneeze on the F-5s Wings.....................they have become porcelain. 

 

I mean REALLY ??

[Esac_mirmidon]

No track, no pic, no info, not very helpful

F-5 max G is 7.3. Take this in count when you are flying.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Esac_mirmidon

[=475FG= Dawger]

The assymetrical G modeling (Rolling under G) is pretty seriously in error. I have created a thread on this but so far it has not generated a response. 

At present, even the slightest roll input when sustaining high G will rip the wings off.

[dehowie]

5 hours ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

No track, no pic, no info, not very helpful

F-5 max G is 7.3. Take this in count when you are flying.

 

Mmmm so you think then at 7.4G the wing just snaps?

Aircraft particularly combat aircraft are built with large stress margins for the very reason they know combat pilots under stress can over G any aircraft.

They dont just snap like a twig as in whats happening with the F-5 right now for very minor exceedences.

Even larger exceedences dont cause structural failure unless its a massive exceedence.

[Esac_mirmidon]

5 hours ago, dehowie said:

Mmmm so you think then at 7.4G the wing just snaps?

Aircraft particularly combat aircraft are built with large stress margins for the very reason they know combat pilots under stress can over G any aircraft.

They dont just snap like a twig as in whats happening with the F-5 right now for very minor exceedences.

Even larger exceedences dont cause structural failure unless its a massive exceedence.

No, i dont think so.

I've just said without info i cant see what is happening. Show me something to sustain that at 7.4G or 8 or whatever G he is claiming, the wings are ripping off to build a decent bug report.

That's what i think.

Sneezing on the wings is not "technical" enough to build one.

 

I know making a good bug report takes time but if one dollar for every report posted without a track was gived to me....

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Esac_mirmidon

[HWasp]

F-5 Starfighter

[HWasp]

8 hours ago, dehowie said:

Mmmm so you think then at 7.4G the wing just snaps?

Aircraft particularly combat aircraft are built with large stress margins for the very reason they know combat pilots under stress can over G any aircraft.

They dont just snap like a twig as in whats happening with the F-5 right now for very minor exceedences.

Even larger exceedences dont cause structural failure unless its a massive exceedence.

Just to be clear, the wings now break just above 10 Gs currently for a 2x Aim-9 config. So, you need to sneeze at them pretty damn hard I think.

Possibly this needs some more fine tuning maybe, as 7,3x1,5 is 10,95G, but it is still much more realistic this way, than everyone pulling their 15G turns at every merge, because they can.

(PS 10G seems to be the exact limit for me in this config)

Edited December 6, 2021 by HWasp

[Esac_mirmidon]

Roughly the breaking point should be around 1.5 times Max G. At least structural damage should be clearly noticed.

So for 7.3G, something around 11G should cause significant structural damage.

 

The thing in DCS is how can be modelled that structural damage?

Wings bending?

Direct ripping off?

I can understand is easier to make wings break than model bending and structural damage without ripping off, with the associated chances on FM, and so on and so for.

So for me the easiest solution is.

 

Do not exceed Max G while flying. You have 3G margin. More than enough. 

[Nealius]

Hung stores, damaged flaps or ailerons, etc. would be good for a start, instead of a binary switch that rips your wings off. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Nealius

[Esac_mirmidon]

31 minutes ago, Nealius said:

Hung stores, damaged flaps or ailerons, etc. would be good for a start, instead of a binary switch that rips your wings off. 

 

Agree.

Some modules have this. But the thing is, at one point something should break. How to model that?

Its not easy to bend wings instead of loosing wings. Flight Model, etc. But for me the key is fly inside Max envelope.

 

Nobody should pull much more than Max G. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Esac_mirmidon

[cofcorpse]

27 minutes ago, Nealius said:

Hung stores, damaged flaps or ailerons, etc. would be good for a start, instead of a binary switch that rips your wings off. 

 

If it is added then it will happen before wing ripping off. So restrictions will be even stricter

[Esac_mirmidon]

True

[Nealius]

42 minutes ago, cofcorpse said:

If it is added then it will happen before wing ripping off. So restrictions will be even stricter

Stricter but not catastrophic is better than zero warning until sudden catestrophic failure.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Is way easier to fly inside the max envelope of the plane. You will be 100% sure not to break anything. The G meter is there to take care of the readings

Edited December 6, 2021 by Esac_mirmidon

[=475FG= Dawger]

If the actual airplane behaved in the manner this one now does, pilots would be afraid to fly it. Any rolling maneuver at relatively normal G levels (for high speed jet combat) takes the wings off.

Metal fatigue is cumulative and the 7.3 limit is meant to prolong the life of the aircraft. 1.5 times the limit is the rule of thumb MINIMUM safety margin. Unless someone has a document somewhere saying the wing fails at 10.95 G, I would assume the actual wing failure G loading is much closer to 2.0 than 1.5. Other parts bend and/or come off first. 

[Nealius]

16 hours ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Is way easier to fly inside the max envelope of the plane. You will be 100% sure not to break anything. The G meter is there to take care of the readings

 

Can't dogfight while staring at a G meter. We unfortunately don't have the luxury of being able to feel the G in our bodies. "Just glance at it." I do. Then I've lost the bandit and thus the fight when I put my eyes outside again. Experienced pilots in the real world don't need to rely on a gauge because they can feel the G. Sims are handicapped in that regard.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Nealius

[Esac_mirmidon]

You will get use to fly on the limits with time and practice.

I was breaking Tomcat wings a lot when starting to fly that beauty. Now i fly on the limits with no problem.

I know the speeds, the touch on my controls, the experience the more i combat. Just get use to fly inside the Max envelope of the plane. Is the better advice i can give.

Also the more you fly, more time to take a look at the speed, AoA, G meter. It will be a second nature with time.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Esac_mirmidon

[Nealius]

I've got 100+ hours in some modules and that is not true in my case.....a glance at the AoA or G meter is too fast for my brain to process anything more than a blurred image.

[razo+r]

You dont need more than a blurred image to be honest. 

 

You just need to see the general direction of the needle, and together with the knowledge which number is at 3 o'clock, you got the info needed. 

 

And AoA gauge can be disregarded in that sense. 

[HWasp]

There are 2 different things here:

1. The ultimate G limit of 10. (with no roll input) 

2. The behaviour in case of a roll input.

Roll input does increase the AoA and the G with the same elevator position, also it does increase the load on the wing, where the aileron deflects down. This does seem a bit harsh, maybe it could be tuned down a little bit. For this they'll need some tracks, as they requested in the bug report thread. 

As for the ultimate limit, nobody really knows, when an aircraft will deform and break exactly. That is the reason for the well known 1,5x to be there, because that is the only way to make sure, that the aircraft will survive the normal, published G limits 99,99999% of the time. It is not meant as some hidden reserve. 

I'd personally prefer a random ultimate G limit, changing between 1,4x to 1,7x (just 2 random numbers in the middle somewhere...) + a dice roll for some damage, otherwise it is an endless debate, that nobody really knows the answer for.

[cofcorpse]

13 minutes ago, HWasp said:

I'd personally prefer a random ultimate G limit, changing between 1,4x to 1,7x (just 2 random numbers in the middle somewhere...) + a dice roll for some damage, otherwise it is an endless debate, that nobody really knows the answer for.

What's the purpose of the random limit? 1.4x for one player in MP and 1.7x for the other, I don't think it is a good idea. Also, damage doesn't occur at the exact same G value al lthe time. Limit will slightly vary in different conditions.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Those are interesting inputs. But the thing is to know where is the breaking point supported with tracks. 

The absolute no roll limit

The rolling limit

Then we can build a complete bug report if there are any to fine tune the F-5 g tolerance

[Mordant]

I think this blends in similarly to a thread about overspeed damage. I feel a lot of these things need to be modeled better as they are not well modeled. One of the very big issues I think we will encounter is that recovering an aircraft with overspeed/over-g damage let alone certain parameters at the time of damage is very difficult. Plus I don't think the Air Force/Russia/Pakistan/etc would key ED into it anyway. It'd be difficult, although ED could maybe do it. I think it's pointless to argue over "How much further should the aircraft go after the pinned limit" as we don't know. If someone has evidence to the real number, come forward. Otherwise, I don't think its worth arguing or even politely debating.

 

Heres the Overspeed thread:

 

Smooth Skies,

Mordant

Edited December 7, 2021 by Mordant

[HWasp]

51 minutes ago, cofcorpse said:

What's the purpose of the random limit? 1.4x for one player in MP and 1.7x for the other, I don't think it is a good idea. Also, damage doesn't occur at the exact same G value al lthe time. Limit will slightly vary in different conditions.

It would create a range of uncertainty, that people should avoid, without having to nail it down to a single exact value, which could be debated forever. Also different examples of the same type may break at different points, becasue of an endless number of reasons (different age, flight hours, condititions, usage, etc etc etc), so I don't think, that it would be unrealistic. 

I meant it so random, that there would be a dice roll every time someone gets into the range, where it could happen, so being able to pull 12Gs on one turn would not mean, that the next turn it will not fall apart at 11.

My suggestion would be to allow a reasonable overshoot of let's say 1,2x to 1,3x the normal limit, after that there could be a range for random damage (causing some slight asymmetry), and after that a range for structural failure. 

Same could be done for overspeed. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by HWasp

[GGTharos]

There's already cumulative damage past a certain g AFAIK, so if you over-g to that point and over-g to that point again, there's no guarantee that the wings will remain attached.