Jump to content

Concerns about G-Onset and Damage to wings


ElvisDaKang

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

And the F-5E wing experienced NO structural failures of any sort when subjected to 1.5 times 7.33 in static testing. It experienced one structural deformation in the trailing edge spar during landing spin up testing at limit load.

If it sustained structural failure of trailing edge spar at limit load (which is 7.33g) its actually pretty bad, requiring redesign as they say. You can see from it that the wing structure is not as strong as you might think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

You  are trying very hard to justify the wings breaking at 11G or breaking at something less than 11G with any roll input contrary to available evidence.

Its pretty obvious they will not break at 11 G, especially the first time 11 G is achieved. 

They tested the equivalent of 4 aircraft lifetimes (16,000 hours)without issue up to the ultimate limit.

The DCS F-5 wing breaks at 11 G the first time you reach it, which is demonstrably wrong.

The DCS F-5 will shed its wings with very minor roll inputs above 7 G, also demonstrably wrong.

For more information on how the Mission Phase Maneuver Spectra requirements were determined, you should refer to MIL-A-8860 and MIL-A-8866. I imagine they were developed via survey of actual sorties and the 9 G cutoff likely has more to do with the limitations of the recording accelerometers installed in line aircraft than anything else.

image.png

No,  you re just completely missing the point and misunderstanding me.

For all I care , ED could've made the wings break at 10.1 G, it wouldn't detract me from enjoying the module.  Because I wouldn't be fighting in a realistic way at those G-loads anyway and if I constantly broke the aircraft inadvertently because I yanked too hard  , then I would try to work on my flying skills and feel for the aircraft.

What do you need 11G for? Seriously for what? What does pulling 11G give you, that you can't do at 9G , which you can pull in the F-5 and even then you re already exceeeding limits quite a bit.

Why do you think even todays modern fighters that arguably have considerably more performance than the old F-5, are normally limited by their FBW to around +9G? The Airframes are certainly able to generate more, but probably it just doesn't make a lot sense, because as a Pilot you re not longer operating very efficiently at above 9G.People are getting the wrong ideas, because they can still move their heads around and look around like they re sitting on the couch and the whole person is not weighing a metric ton.

Even the F-16 can't pull more G (short limiter exceedences aside , which are <1G, so still below 10G) due to the FBW limiting you. Sure , no FBW in the F-5, but seriously do you really need to pull more G than an F-16 to win? This has nothing to do anymore with realistic fighting or aircraft employment. 

The turning G-Limit is up for discussion and I can't comment on that , but I wouldn't underestimate the effects at 7 G , because to roll one wing will generate significantly more G and the asymmetric load is probable not exactly easy on the material.


Edited by Snappy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

You  are trying very hard to justify the wings breaking at 11G or breaking at something less than 11G with any roll input contrary to available evidence.

Its pretty obvious they will not break at 11 G, especially the first time 11 G is achieved. 

They tested the equivalent of 4 aircraft lifetimes (16,000 hours)without issue up to the ultimate limit.

The DCS F-5 wing breaks at 11 G the first time you reach it, which is demonstrably wrong.

The DCS F-5 will shed its wings with very minor roll inputs above 7 G, also demonstrably wrong.

For more information on how the Mission Phase Maneuver Spectra requirements were determined, you should refer to MIL-A-8860 and MIL-A-8866. I imagine they were developed via survey of actual sorties and the 9 G cutoff likely has more to do with the limitations of the recording accelerometers installed in line aircraft than anything else.

image.png

Bro, if you want to dog fight at 10 Gs, you need to go back to playing CoreBlunder or Star Wars.

Please don't kill the sim for the rest of us who can never go back to arcade.


Edited by LowRider88
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png

5 hours ago, Golo said:

If it sustained structural failure of trailing edge spar at limit load (which is 7.33g) its actually pretty bad, requiring redesign as they say. You can see from it that the wing structure is not as strong as you might think.

The failure occurred during level landing spin up. The force applied would be parallel to the wing at the end of the main gear strut. This means the trailing edge spar deformed at the limit load in torsion, which is not a normal maneuvering load on the trailing edge spar.

It was redesigned and retested to ultimate load.

But if you want to hang your hat on that, I won't be able to influence your thinking.

image.png


Edited by =475FG= Dawger

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Snappy said:

No,  you re just completely missing the point and misunderstanding me.

For all I care , ED could've made the wings break at 10.1 G, it wouldn't detract me from enjoying the module.  Because I wouldn't be fighting in a realistic way at those G-loads anyway and if I constantly broke the aircraft inadvertently because I yanked too hard  , then I would try to work on my flying skills and feel for the aircraft.

What do you need 11G for? Seriously for what? What does pulling 11G give you, that you can't do at 9G , which you can pull in the F-5 and even then you re already exceeeding limits quite a bit.

Why do you think even todays modern fighters that arguably have considerably more performance than the old F-5, are normally limited by their FBW to around +9G? The Airframes are certainly able to generate more, but probably it just doesn't make a lot sense, because as a Pilot you re not longer operating very efficiently at above 9G.People are getting the wrong ideas, because they can still move their heads around and look around like they re sitting on the couch and the whole person is not weighing a metric ton.

Even the F-16 can't pull more G (short limiter exceedences aside , which are <1G, so still below 10G) due to the FBW limiting you. Sure , no FBW in the F-5, but seriously do you really need to pull more G than an F-16 to win? This has nothing to do anymore with realistic fighting or aircraft employment. 

The turning G-Limit is up for discussion and I can't comment on that , but I wouldn't underestimate the effects at 7 G , because to roll one wing will generate significantly more G and the asymmetric load is probable not exactly easy on the material.

 

Modern FBW limits are mostly because the pilot is the weak link in the equation, not the airplane.

It is not a matter of whether I "want" to pull 11G or not. The F-5 clearly does not shed its wing at 11 G, so its wrong.

And that number is driving the wing failures that are a problem, rolling failures in fairly normal high G re-positions which are also clearly wrong. 

That is the big factor pointing a big error message in the sky. A gentle high yo-yo in a high speed rate fight is knocking both wings off with minor roll input to move the lift vector into lead for the pulldown.

 

A few days ago I was trimmed for my 410 knot afterburner climb out when I realized my sim shaker was not operating. I took off the HMD and tabbed out. As I made a few clicks, the airplane slowly rolled left. I tabbed back to DCS, pushed the stick right with my pinky back to level and tabbed back to Simshaker. A few seconds later, I tabbed back in with the HMD on only to hear GCI say "Dawger you disappeared from the scope". Sure enough, my wild pinky maneuver had caused the wing to depart the aircraft.

However, it is obvious that there is no interest in getting this right so further engagement on my point would be a waste of time.

Cheers!

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using your pinky to push the stick in afterburner is vastly more different than wrenching the stick at 7.33 G.  If rest your arm on a scale, how much would it weight?  How much would it be multiplied by your G factor?  That is just getting your arm to move while you are straining from G breathing and trying to stay conscious.  Add to that you are trying to move several tons of plane, multiplied by the G factor.  That is not something you can move with a pinky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=475FG= Dawger  stated EXACTLY what I knew was going on to begin with. He has FAR greater patience than I do in this thread and in life in general.

BELOW are the SIMPLE facts eloquently, accurately and briefly stated by Dawger -  and they are -  beyond dispute. It has nothing to do with someone's """""""DCS flying flying skill"""""  OR - """"""what are you doing at 11Gs anyway???""" ( One damn thing for sure is ..........what ever we  are doing at 11G is what we want to do and is no one else's business).  Where in TF did that $H*t come from ? It is a SIMPLE statement going NO further than the  structural integrity  vs.  Mr. G of the F-5E in DCS. IT IS INACCURATE. FKN PERIOD. One hopes that after buying this thing (and others)  and paying good money for it that things like this will be addressed. The same is true of ANY aircraft purchased. It will either be addressed or it will not. If it isn't,  it sends a signal to consumers as to what choice to make the next time around. Some ASSume that these things are GOLD right out of the box. They are not. Changes also result in DCS upgrades/updates across these aircraft ..........IF you are paying attention...... and they are not all documented. Several problems like this have been addressed by several of the aircraft producers/vendors after it has been brought to their attention - which is the RIGHT THING to do by anyone that wants to continue to make a profit. We will see where it goes with the F-5E Tiger II. 

FACTS

The DCS F-5 wing breaks at 11 G the first time you reach it, which is demonstrably wrong.

The DCS F-5 will shed its wings with very minor roll inputs above 7 G, also demonstrably wrong.

SO SAYETH THE DAWG - SO IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN 

LONG LIVE THE DAWG

 

END OF STORY. 

 

JESUS TAP DANCING CHRIST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ElvisDaKang said:

=475FG= Dawger  stated EXACTLY what I knew was going on to begin with. He has FAR greater patience than I do in this thread and in life in general.

BELOW are the SIMPLE facts eloquently, accurately and briefly stated by Dawger -  and they are -  beyond dispute. It has nothing to do with someone's """""""DCS flying flying skill"""""  OR - """"""what are you doing at 11Gs anyway???""" ( One damn thing for sure is ..........what ever we  are doing at 11G is what we want to do and is no one else's business).  Where in TF did that $H*t come from ? It is a SIMPLE statement going NO further than the  structural integrity  vs.  Mr. G of the F-5E in DCS. IT IS INACCURATE. FKN PERIOD. One hopes that after buying this thing (and others)  and paying good money for it that things like this will be addressed. The same is true of ANY aircraft purchased. It will either be addressed or it will not. If it isn't,  it sends a signal to consumers as to what choice to make the next time around. Some ASSume that these things are GOLD right out of the box. They are not. Changes also result in DCS upgrades/updates across these aircraft ..........IF you are paying attention...... and they are not all documented. Several problems like this have been addressed by several of the aircraft producers/vendors after it has been brought to their attention - which is the RIGHT THING to do by anyone that wants to continue to make a profit. We will see where it goes with the F-5E Tiger II. 

FACTS

The DCS F-5 wing breaks at 11 G the first time you reach it, which is demonstrably wrong.

The DCS F-5 will shed its wings with very minor roll inputs above 7 G, also demonstrably wrong.

SO SAYETH THE DAWG - SO IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN 

LONG LIVE THE DAWG

 

END OF STORY. 

 

JESUS TAP DANCING CHRIST

 

In the end it is just a game.  Why are you losing it now?

We all paid for the same module so what gives your ideals preference over the rest of us?

I waited patiently and gratefully for over a year for a F-5 vapour request, without threatening ED with avoiding modules, or quoting Jesus.

 

The problem is, not everyone here agrees with you two.

Golo did a test and said he did not see the same:

Others here say Dawgers reading of the manual is not the proper interpretation.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dcsil2pilot said:

I don't have much else other than tacview to provide, but last night I had my wings snap off during a roll while at 6.4G. I posted about it in the other thread linked above.

 

F-5 wing snap is greatly over-modeled in my opinion and it's just not fun to fly anymore

It has never happened to me before, as well as others.  Does it happen to you when you are maneuvering at dogfighting speeds, I.e near corner speeds?

For me if the F-5 is not fun it is more about the inaccuracy of its ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dcsil2pilot said:

I don't have much else other than tacview to provide, but last night I had my wings snap off during a roll while at 6.4G. I posted about it in the other thread linked above.

F-5 wing snap is greatly over-modeled in my opinion and it's just not fun to fly anymore

Which doesn't help.  The track is necessary because it can reproduce airframe fatigue if any or indicate a bug.  At least with tacview though you should be able to do the g vs. time plot and see if you've exceeded the aircraft's limits during your flight prior to that occurrence.

If you cannot create an easily repeatable test for it then your anecdote is just that.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My beef is it has simply not always been this EXCESSIVELY fragile  - it was FAR closer to the real specs for the real F-5E. Dawg has laid that out in data. If others disagree and think it is fine as it is now - good for them. Where is their data? I will keep checking in on it to see if it gets addressed - otherwise I will eventually blow it off my hard drive if it doesnt and drive tha fuk on and forget it. 

 

Hope that doesn't happen. Love the jet but I am not going to continue to fly it in this shitty condition someone thought was a """good""" idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree it’s a tad few numbers off. It needs to go back in the hanger on the priority list. 

ALIENWARE R11 - I9 10900KF @ 5.1 GHz - M.2 NVMe 2TB - RTX3090  - XFURY 64GB -3400 MHz RAM

Monitor AW3420DW @ 120Hz - Virpil CM3 Throttle - TM TPR Rudder pedals - Virpil CM2 w/TM Hornet Stick Center - Monstertech Deck Mounts 

RealSimulator FSSB-R3 Lightning Base w/ F16SRGRH SideStick - VR user / Varjo Aero - Big Thx to mbucchia

Start Date April 2020 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2022 at 5:27 PM, Decibel dB said:

Those wing are ridiculously fragile 😡 I been searching Google about F5 lost in flight because of wings failure and the only thing that I could find steer me here on the DCS forum. That tell a lot

 

No, it only tells you that in reality G-Limits are taken much more seriously than in DCS ,where people routinely happily exceed them heavily and repeatedly.


Edited by Snappy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Decibel dB said:

On a plane you feel,  you ear it, you smell. That is not the case here. 

Although I don't disagree with the wing damage, maybe what might be missing is the notification you refer to.

When we are flying at corner speed, high AoA, and try to pitch in the turn more, there is some buffeting before stall.  This resistance serves somewhat like a built in warning to us to put a cap on going over the limit  in our maneuvers.

Here, with regards to suddenly jerk pulling the control column at transonic speed, I imagine there should likewise be a similar level of resistance, or some warning before the wings tear off.  Other commenters in the forum here said there is no resistance because of the hydraulic or electrical control surfaces, which allow the over limit inputs.  But if this is the case, why do we get the resistance and buffeting at cornerspeed high AoA?

If the wings ripping off are due to acculumlated damage, and as some have suggested could be due to some incremental damage in multiplayer due to repetitive spawning, then another possible notification could be that a less than brand new plane post spawn could be represented with some creaking or cracking sounds during moderate maneuvers. This kind of remind me of such sounds in iL-2 1946.  Although, since DCS seems to mute out a lot of the sounds when realistic helmet audio is enabled, this might not help much.

i like the fact that the plane may be more realistic with limitation damage, but it does seem reasonable that notifications or resistance be investigated, and added if applicable.

If that resistance or notification is added, rather than being a pain point for most players now, the wing damage then becomes something manageable like a stall or spin.  Something to be careful about but is manageable.  Then it's just an additional spice in the game, once we know how to master it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LowRider88 said:

Although I don't disagree with the wing damage, maybe what might be missing is the notification you refer to.

When we are flying at corner speed, high AoA, and try to pitch in the turn more, there is some buffeting before stall.  This resistance serves somewhat like a built in warning to us to put a cap on going over the limit  in our maneuvers.

Here, with regards to suddenly jerk pulling the control column at transonic speed, I imagine there should likewise be a similar level of resistance, or some warning before the wings tear off.  Other commenters in the forum here said there is no resistance because of the hydraulic or electrical control surfaces, which allow the over limit inputs.  But if this is the case, why do we get the resistance and buffeting at cornerspeed high AoA?

If the wings ripping off are due to acculumlated damage, and as some have suggested could be due to some incremental damage in multiplayer due to repetitive spawning, then another possible notification could be that a less than brand new plane post spawn could be represented with some creaking or cracking sounds during moderate maneuvers. This kind of remind me of such sounds in iL-2 1946.  Although, since DCS seems to mute out a lot of the sounds when realistic helmet audio is enabled, this might not help much.

i like the fact that the plane may be more realistic with limitation damage, but it does seem reasonable that notifications or resistance be investigated, and added if applicable.

If that resistance or notification is added, rather than being a pain point for most players now, the wing damage then becomes something manageable like a stall or spin.  Something to be careful about but is manageable.  Then it's just an additional spice in the game, once we know how to master it.

 

Real aircraft's flight controls are very different to the simple sticks most people use. A stick extension + force feedback would solve this issue for many people instantly.

Aircraft with hydraulic flight controls do have either artificial feel / force feedback or a system like MiG-21/19 where the control ratio is adjusted as speed changes. 

I think it is a valid problem, that the F-5 needs very careful hands at high speeds with the average joystick, but the correct approach to this is not letting people get away with their 15 g turns, but rather to adjust the flight controls a bit for the DCS F-5.

There could be an option (in the control options menu), where you could select a help option, that would change the control ratio a bit  as speed increases, making it more controllable for users with average equipement. (I mean just change it a bit not dumb it down completely, damage should still be very much possible if someone is too hamfisted)

That being said, I don't find it too difficult at all to avoid ripping the wings off. I've been flying the F-5 in MP and I think it is not a huge issue at all.

I think many people have developed some bad habits previously, finishing every single mission always with the G meter maxed out both directions... 🙂

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HWasp said:

So, just a quick test:

Barrel roll at 8,6-8,9G with 2 aim-9s, and the same at 7,6-7,8 Gs with a full large centerline tank.

Both cases I'm far beyond all the red lines and nothing happens. Why is this not enough?

Was this maybe adjusted last patch?

F-5wing1.trk 338.14 kB · 1 download F-5wing2.trk 178.52 kB · 0 downloads

Did you also do a run before the last patch or this this your first test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

 

Real aircraft's flight controls are very different to the simple sticks most people use. A stick extension + force feedback would solve this issue for many people instantly.

Aircraft with hydraulic flight controls do have either artificial feel / force feedback or a system like MiG-21/19 where the control ratio is adjusted as speed changes. 

I think it is a valid problem, that the F-5 needs very careful hands at high speeds with the average joystick, but the correct approach to this is not letting people get away with their 15 g turns, but rather to adjust the flight controls a bit for the DCS F-5.

There could be an option (in the control options menu), where you could select a help option, that would change the control ratio a bit  as speed increases, making it more controllable for users with average equipement. (I mean just change it a bit not dumb it down completely, damage should still be very much possible if someone is too hamfisted)

That being said, I don't find it too difficult at all to avoid ripping the wings off. I've been flying the F-5 in MP and I think it is not a huge issue at all.

I think many people have developed some bad habits previously, finishing every single mission always with the G meter maxed out both directions... 🙂

Completely 100% agree with you HWasp.

Also, it's a pleasure to interact with the one who provided the experimental data to help with the recent FM tweaking 🙂 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PetRock said:

Did you also do a run before the last patch or this this your first test?

Hi PetRock, Thanks for the question.

I also did a run before the latest patching and found similar behaviour, but more subtle.

Prior to patching, the F-5 was outrunning me in a 2 circle fight and also in climbs, when I used max dry thrust in the 19.  As I mentioned elsewhere, this seems ridiculous since a 19 with max dry thrust still has better T/W than a 5 at afterburner.  Before the patch I could eventually win if I turn on the 19's afterburner in the climb.  That was with the 5 at Trained skill level.

Now, after the patch, I turn on the afterburner and still can't catch it in a climb.  I stall while it does two immelmanns.  This is even when the 5 is dropped down to Rookie level.

In comparison, the F-18 AI currently does not climb as ridiculously as the 5's AI.  Instead it fight's a proper scissors fight.

So how could a next gen Northrop plane be outperformed by its predecessor?  If that was reasonable, why even bother building a Hornet?

 

Just a side note, I also did AI runs with other aircraft, against the 19, all during holiday break time.

The 3 with the most UFO like AI behaviour seem to be the F-5, the AV-8 and the Viggen.

A Rookie AI AV-8 also outruns a 19 in a 2 circle fight.  I admit the 8 has superior T/W over the 19, but with sub sonic max speed and much worse wing loading, this T/W advantage should equate to just faster acceleration, not better top speed in a turn.  It should be able to get a way from a 19 for only a short burst, not out range it indefinitely.  Some may assume the 8 may maintain speed in a turn due to its LERX.  But I doubt it can out run a supersonic fighter with turning ability.  I also tested the 8 against a human flown 5, which also has LERX, and same thing, the 8 out runs it.  I challenge anyone to try shooting down a Rookie AV-8 AI.  If you can, please share what you did, to prove this is not ridiculous.

For the Viggen, it also behaves the same as the 8 and out runs the 19.  Here, I admit the Vig has about the same wingloading as the Viggen.  But it's T/W is worse.  After watching the replay, I see the Vig AI is accomplishing this because it is pulling near 10 Gs for extended periods of time, I.e. more than the approx limit of 15 seconds a human can take.  Just because it was designed for 12 Gs, does not mean the AI should fly it.  I read elsewhere in this forum than real pilots were still constrained to 7, and even later 6 Gs in the Vig.

I tested the Vig and 8 before patching, have not had a chance yet to retest.

It may not be a concern for multiplayer, but for single players or campaigns, everything is flown out the window if either friendly or enemy AI wingmen are actually from Star Wars squadrons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh... you can't use the AI Flight model to base any test on. Its widely known they use a much more simplified FM that is "generous" with the laws of physics.

I was curious if you had flown the same profile, in the F-5, before/after last patch. 

Has anyone else done so?


Edited by PetRock
words
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...