correct as is Holding down the AP disconnect button allows for constant +8.5G pulls

[85th_Maverick]

Hello,

Please check to see if the AP disconnect button should allow for the flight controls system to unrestrict the positive AoA max +7.5G limit! Whenever the AP disconnect button is once pressed (no matter if the autopilot is already ON or OFF) while already having a full aft stick input (I didn't try with part aft stick to see if the FCS activates the same unrestriction again or only at full aft stick), the required positive AoA for holding the operational G limit is unrestricted to a couple of degrees higher which allows for afferent higher G loads. At the same time the MASTER WARNING light comes on. The FCS self resets when the stick is released and the AoA now re-limits the G load to whatever it should be and the MASTER WARNING light goes off as well. So, please check to see if this is the case with the real F-18C as well. By logic and common sense engineering, this G limit unrestriction shouldn't happen by using an AP disconnect button...! If it were for the pilot to have an emergency higher G limit for a matter of seconds, a dedicated button must've been there for it. At least that's how I see it. The structural failure limit is realistic for the F-18 already. As I've played a little with this rather abnormal AP disconnect high G limit behavior, I could see that the wings with break at some 9 to a bit over 9G if that G is held for more than 1 or 2 seconds. Yes, I've also reached some 10.3Gs but only for less than half a second and it didn't break which is remarkably well simulated. In civil aviation at least, an "ultimate load factor" is about 1.5 times the "design limit load factor" while for the military (where performance is more important) the ultimate load factor is usually around 1.2 times the design limit. The ultimate load factor is defined as the load at which internal primary structural elements (spars, stringers, whole torque boxes, etc.) start breaking up when subjected to a constant force for more than 3 seconds. So, in other words, only after 3 seconds of being held at those loads the structure can fail. The lower the amount of time a structural member is held at a given load, the less the chance for it to break. Someone can call it "resilience". This is a big thumbs up for all fixed wing aircraft in DCS and my admiration towards all the developers in DCS modeling the function of structural failure G-load versus exposed time to those loads. I've first seen this playing a bit with the Su-27 and 33 when using direct pitch input and first saw that the wings integrity would fail at some 10G at a full internal fuel and no belly and engine nacelles loadout condition (the load carried by the wings alone does not have any effect on the G-limit at which the wing breaks off the fuselage, which is also another important and correctly simulated thing, cause only the total weight of the fuselage is what makes the wings break off of it, and if the pylons break alone or not is something separate) if that 10G is held for no more than some 1 or 2 seconds. If the lower the time, let's say 0.2 seconds and now the wings can resist even at some 13G or more without breaking. The lower the fuselage (only) weight, again, the higher the structural breaking G-load versus time. Speaking of witch (regarding a Su-27/33 wings breaking G-load topic), the Su-27 and 33 in DCS prove the lowest G limit wings breaking resistance among all fighters. Either these 2 Sukhois are being simulated a bit too weak compared to reality or all other fighters are too resistant, it's a big subject to research, but my view is that all other are about right (except MIG-21 and probably another) while the Su-27 and 33 should have it some 1..2Gs higher than it is, because the only known Su-27 that had a wing broken closer to the tip was a prototype and they've redesigned the wing after that mishap!

All the best!

Edited July 25, 2022 by 85th_Maverick

[Dragon1-1]

It is there, and the AP disconnect paddle does this in the real Hornet. That's just how they made it. Wings don't actually break in the real thing like they do in DCS, however they can become permanently bent upwards. Generally, the published limits of an aircraft are set with an assumption that the airplane is to be flown again. If subsequent flights are of no concern, there are no limits, or at least they're significantly relaxed. Of course, an aircraft that has been through many flights will be subject to wear and tear, and could possibly fail even below the stated limits if it's old and beaten up enough, but in DCS, we don't have airframe wear simulated.

So yeah, if you saw Top Gun: Maverick, those crazy maneuvers, or something close to it, anyway, are surprisingly possible with the use of that switch and a disregard for little things like airframe wear (and also a good reason to use the Hornet in first place, AFAIK the F-35 doesn't have a similar override). Also, try inserting some paragraph breaks, would help with reading your post.

[Foka]

Manual. Page 84.

[BIGNEWY]

G Limiter Override. The g limiter may be overridden by momentarily pressing the paddle switch with the control stick near full aft. Command limit g is then increased by 33%. A gLIM OVRD caution is displayed, and the MASTER CAUTION light and tone come on. Override is disengaged when the control stick is returned to near neutral.

When I test all seems good to me. 

Please include a track replay showing the issue. 

thanks

[oldcrusty]

I'm not a Hornet guru and haven't tested this myself but if indeed the paddle switch performs 2 functions simultaneously and allows g override with any mode of A/P on... that would surprise me. Though, I don't ever remember disconnecting A/P while pulling on a stick more then 1/2 inch but... yanking hard on a stick while A/P is on would disconnect without using the paddle. :D.  

[Hulkbust44]

12 hours ago, oldcrusty said:

I'm not a Hornet guru and haven't tested this myself but if indeed the paddle switch performs 2 functions simultaneously and allows g override with any mode of A/P on... that would surprise me. Though, I don't ever remember disconnecting A/P while pulling on a stick more then 1/2 inch but... yanking hard on a stick while A/P is on would disconnect without using the paddle. :D.  

Why? It activates at around 2/3 stick aft travel. 

[oldcrusty]

1 hour ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Why? It activates at around 2/3 stick aft travel. 

I don't know how this works in DCS, I don't use g ovrd. at all.  Pulling the stick violently with the paddle depressed while on A/P would certainly disconnect A/P first before engaging g ovrd.

so, yea... probably no real issues there.

[85th_Maverick]

On 7/25/2022 at 12:08 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

It is there, and the AP disconnect paddle does this in the real Hornet. That's just how they made it. Wings don't actually break in the real thing like they do in DCS, however they can become permanently bent upwards. Generally, the published limits of an aircraft are set with an assumption that the airplane is to be flown again. If subsequent flights are of no concern, there are no limits, or at least they're significantly relaxed. Of course, an aircraft that has been through many flights will be subject to wear and tear, and could possibly fail even below the stated limits if it's old and beaten up enough, but in DCS, we don't have airframe wear simulated.

So yeah, if you saw Top Gun: Maverick, those crazy maneuvers, or something close to it, anyway, are surprisingly possible with the use of that switch and a disregard for little things like airframe wear (and also a good reason to use the Hornet in first place, AFAIK the F-35 doesn't have a similar override). Also, try inserting some paragraph breaks, would help with reading your post.

Yeap, the structural fatigue isn't indeed simulated and nobody should waste time with that kind of modelling, but wings remaining bent up to a level and having the plane not fly straight (some uncommanded beta and/or roll) if a given G limit is reached before they actually break is something already achieved in other flight sims, but again, this shouldn't be a priority! The priority should mainly be focused on accurate simulations. At least that's what DCS should mean to me!;)

No, I didn't watch Top Gun 2, because only after I accidentally saw some parts of a trailer showing very unrealistic F-18 pitch up accelerations (a kind of fast cobra or something that it did) that would induce some 30 G's (I've calculated that using time frames and some math just for fun and that's what it resulted for an instant G-load) or more on the pilot simply made me puke..., so, no thanks, I'm all for realism and TOP GUN 1 remained the only one more appealing to me;).

On 7/26/2022 at 6:50 AM, oldcrusty said:

I don't know how this works in DCS, I don't use g ovrd. at all.  Pulling the stick violently with the paddle depressed while on A/P would certainly disconnect A/P first before engaging g ovrd.

so, yea... probably no real issues there.

It does not engage the normal G-override unless you release the stick first, but holds some couple of degrees AoA and G-load higher. You simply pull full stick, press the disconnect then release it and as long as the stick remains pulled, the normal limitation is gone, but some higher limit is still there. I've already wrote about it!

On 7/25/2022 at 1:05 PM, Foka said:

Manual. Page 84.

Thanks! I didn't RTFM so, it was as simple as that!;)

Edited August 3, 2022 by 85th_Maverick