correct as is Wing stress damage non-existent.

[jakm75]

11Gs hit repeatedly...
11.6 peak.

no deterioration of the wings to any noticeable extent... seems rather unrealistic for a hornet to get that much abuse and not see at-least a bit of bend in their wing structure.

NATOPs declassified FA18C manuals show a maximum operating G limit of 7.5Gs, to exceed the suggested G-limits in excess of 50% seems a tad silly to walk away unscathed repeatedly.

 

wing load test.trk

[BIGNEWY]

Hi, 

as mentioned in discord you wont see physical wing break before 15G on the F/A-18C in DCS. 

This is correct based on information we have. 

Maximum G limits are not failure values. 

Thank you

[AKarhu]

Remember as well that aircraft maneuvering limits are not in place primarily to protect against snapping wings or any other part of the aircraft if exceeded, but to protect the designed fatigue life of the aircraft.

The ultimate loads that would immediately break primary structural components would very much exceed anything that would be reasonably thrown at the airframe in service, and some damage of lesser degree would certainly be sustained before reaching those loads (that 15 g mentioned sounds reasonable to me). Even without abnormal numbers of over-g events, any airframes of age that are from relatively high stress usage tend to accumulate assorted repairs in their structures, adding weight and inspections if nothing else. In case of the Hornet, the center fuselage 'barrel' area tends to be the primary area of concern, as far as I am informed.

Recorded over-g events do result in an airframe inspection and may result in damage being detected if severe enough, however, they are unlikely to result in anything that was detectable by the pilot in any direct way after the incident, unless the limits were exceeded repeatedly over the time and aircraft not receiving proper attention accordingly. In the sim, where you effectively fly just a single sortie, this of course has a little meaning (aside a dynamic campaign, tracking statuses of the individual airframes, obviously! )

Edited December 7, 2023 by AKarhu

[jakm75]

You could've just read a few sentences and see what I mean...
 

The hornet, is not typically authorized to exceed it's set G-limiter...

I would also love to see an aircraft which can see 11Gs (Which is a very stressful spec) and not see the wings atleast damaged...)

You're obviously numbed by the hornet if you think that 12-13Gs can be seen and no damage occurs.

I am also referring to repeated 11Gs of stress which doesn't accumulate to damage.

 

[Hulkbust44]

You could've just read a few sentences and see what I mean...
 
The hornet, is not typically authorized to exceed it's set G-limiter...

I would also love to see an aircraft which can see 11Gs (Which is a very stressful spec) and not see the wings atleast damaged...)

You're obviously numbed by the hornet if you think that 12-13Gs can be seen and no damage occurs.

I am also referring to repeated 11Gs of stress which doesn't accumulate to damage.

 

What are you expecting to happen? Yeah you would tumble the FLIR, maybe the INS if it's an older system. A loaded Charlie Hornet pulled 13.2G avoiding a CFIT in combat. It flew home just fine. It didn't fly again for a long time, but there were no immediate system failures. A few pulls at 11G shouldn't cause structural failure, but any more than that can and will in DCS.

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

[jakm75]

34 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

What are you expecting to happen? Yeah you would tumble the FLIR, maybe the INS if it's an older system. A loaded Charlie Hornet pulled 13.2G avoiding a CFIT in combat. It flew home just fine. It didn't fly again for a long time, but there were no immediate system failures. A few pulls at 11G shouldn't cause structural failure, but any more than that can and will in DCS.

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk
 

What did I say in there?

Go on... what does it say?

"You're obviously numbed by the hornet if you think that 12-13Gs can be seen and no damage occurs."

Now... take a moment.. read what BN said...

I am not saying you experience 'wing failure' 'a snap' or 'a crack'... Instead, a bent wing at the very least.

But in DCS, no failure can occur until 15Gs... There is no damage in between, no buildup, just 'pop' the moment you hit 15Gs.

It's just that, realistically, if a plane saw 13Gs, 11 repeated, etc... it'd see some form of deformation of the wings, until the wings eventually gave.

[Czar66]

4 minutes ago, jakm75 said:

What did I say in there?

Go on... what does it say?

"You're obviously numbed by the hornet if you think that 12-13Gs can be seen and no damage occurs."

Now... take a moment.. read what BN said...

I am not saying you experience 'wing failure' 'a snap' or 'a crack'... Instead, a bent wing at the very least.

But in DCS, no failure can occur until 15Gs... There is no damage in between, no buildup, just 'pop' the moment you hit 15Gs.

It's just that, realistically, if a plane saw 13Gs, 11 repeated, etc... it'd see some form of deformation of the wings, until the wings eventually gave.

It is not modeled. Simply as.

[jakm75]

3 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

It is not modeled. Simply as.

This is all I'm getting at. XD

[ricktoberfest]

1 hour ago, jakm75 said:

 

I would also love to see an aircraft which can see 11Gs (Which is a very stressful spec) and not see the wings atleast damaged...)



 

There are planes that can pull 11g with no damage, it happened often at the Red Bull air races.  I know that’s not a military aircraft but what I’m saying is that an aircraft can be engineered to withstand it if it is necessary.  It’s more about systems damage, wear and tear, and most importantly human weakness leading to blackout.  
 

maybe a better DCS metric for avoiding unrealistic G pulls is to have a more realistic  blackout simulation that can’t be turned off in the options. 

[Dragon1-1]

You won't see damage after a single flight. You will see damage after doing it on every flight, day after day, for some time, and then landing the thing on the boat. Your crew chief will likely see it first and be ticked off at what you're doing to his jet. The squadron CO wouldn't be happy about having to write a jet off early. That's the sort of thing we're talking about here. 

A plane in Red Bull Air Race has to hold together for the duration of the race. That's it. A Viper doesn't deal with salt water, carrier traps, carrier launches and all the general beating up that Navy birds have to endure. I don't know what was the official policy on the "Top Gun switch" in the USN back when the old Hornet served, but it had to do with preserving the jet's operational life. 

[Megalax]

How much knowledge of the wing structure's construction do you have? How can you safely assume it would even bend and stay that way after 11G? Do you have the wing's elasticity data?

[Oldcrow Jr. 62]

G-Limits are there as was stated to help reduce fatigue in the wing box and spar structures. Exceeding the G-limits in one flight will not cause a structural failure unless it is beyond the catastrophic G-Limit established by the engineers on a new wing, then a deformed wing or total failure could occur. What is not being considered, and probably not modeled is the stress / fatigue cycles. A Hornets and most other combat aircraft have multiple wing / spar assemblies. These assemblies are held together using H-Locks and Bolts. As stress is placed on these fasteners, very small movement occurs. Over time, these begin to create oblong wear on the holes in the structures. As time progresses, these elongation of the holes and subsequent fretting, begin to stress not only the fasteners, but also the holes creating micro fractures in the components. The net effect of this causes the fractures to develop into larger cracks, some visible and some internal to the metal. They also allow the fasteners to begin to loosen and move under stress. In some cases it can also begin to bend the Hi-locks and bolts. That is why after over G-limit occurrences, inspections are made to validate no damage has occurred. This is normally accomplished by Dye (liquid) Penetrant, Eddy-current, radio-graphic, radio logical ultrasonic, magnetic particle  testing and visual inspections.

Most wings do have elasticity built into the design to compensate for the aerodynamic and other loads encountered during flight. But most wing deformations will occur at the wing box joints and pass through locations. If you bend the metal at any other points which you can actually see, then you've cause and have damage at these previously mentioned locations.

The greatest risk to wing failure is the repetitive cycles over time from high G maneuvers and over stressing the other critical components such as engine mounts, hard point mounts, landing gear actuator mounts, landing gear mounts and control systems.

Just my two cents worth based upon working on General Aviation Aircraft doing Annual Inspections and hard landing inspections are required.

 

[jakm75]

On 1/1/2024 at 9:09 AM, Megalax said:

How much knowledge of the wing structure's construction do you have? How can you safely assume it would even bend and stay that way after 11G? Do you have the wing's elasticity data?

Enough to know that 14Gs of repeated manuevering would result in a bent wing. There is a reason that most pilots try to ease into a turn rather than ripping the stick... this also is multiplied concern with wing loads. Such as an external tank.

if I have a tank, on a hornet, with another 3000 pounds added to the center of a wing and pull 14Gs in a hornet... it doesn't take a scientist to tell you that 14*3k= 42,000 pounds of force, in one area, pulling the wing down. That's the equivelent to a whole other plane, in addition to the rest of the wing pulling down on it. I don't need a major in material science to tell you what happens when that much force is exerted on 'steel' let alone the softer and 'not as strong' alloy that the least of your worries is a 'bent wing'.

But hey, if you think a dinky wing off a hornet can hold upwards of 42k+ pounds of force with no damage.. be my guest and do a similar test IRL.

 

[Hulkbust44]

Enough to know that 14Gs of repeated manuevering would result in a bent wing. There is a reason that most pilots try to ease into a turn rather than ripping the stick... this also is multiplied concern with wing loads. Such as an external tank.

if I have a tank, on a hornet, with another 3000 pounds added to the center of a wing and pull 14Gs in a hornet... it doesn't take a scientist to tell you that 14*3k= 42,000 pounds of force, in one area, pulling the wing down. That's the equivelent to a whole other plane, in addition to the rest of the wing pulling down on it. I don't need a major in material science to tell you what happens when that much force is exerted on 'steel' let alone the softer and 'not as strong' alloy that the least of your worries is a 'bent wing'.

But hey, if you think a dinky wing off a hornet can hold upwards of 42k+ pounds of force with no damage.. be my guest and do a similar test IRL.

 

What are you on about? You will rip the wing off doing that in DCS, never even seen it register a 14G before they snap. I think it's a good balance in DCS as it is, would you rip the wings off the real jet? Not a chance, but the level of minute damage modeling requires for someone to take an over G in DCS seriously isn't there, so a few hard pulls = no wings seems fair.

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

[jakm75]

47 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

What are you on about? You will rip the wing off doing that in DCS, never even seen it register a 14G before they snap. I think it's a good balance in DCS as it is, would you rip the wings off the real jet? Not a chance, but the level of minute damage modeling requires for someone to take an over G in DCS seriously isn't there, so a few hard pulls = no wings seems fair.

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk
 

Look at what BN said...

You're full of it.

[Hulkbust44]

22 minutes ago, jakm75 said:

Look at what BN said...

You're full of it.

Nope, he has no idea what he's talking about either.

I just did a flight test and the wings snapped no sooner than 11.4g with repetitive lower g pulls.

I don't know what exactly is being calculated, but what BN is absolutely false.

Another run had a snap at 10.3g after 2-3 pulls.

Another, 3 pulls snap at 10.7




Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk
 

OVERG.trk

Edited January 13 by Hulkbust44
Test

[FusRoPotato]

3 hours ago, jakm75 said:

Enough to know that 14Gs of repeated manuevering would result in a bent wing. 

I assume you meant "permanent deformation". The wings on these aircraft don't permanently deform without a rupture. They are covered in composite with titanium shear bars, almost entirely 100% elastic profile, no plastic region. It's a material configuration that only cracks and snaps. 

Go ahead and try to find an F/A-18 bent wing photo online, or even one from an F-15 or F-16. Unless they have bullet holes, they won't exist. It's not how that material works.

Edited January 13 by FusRoPotato

[nikoel]

You know, we can simply have the pilot model black out at >9G, and everyone will be unhappy enough to be happy. Alternatively, if you really want to go banananananas, create a slight 'fatigue blur/chromatic aberration' effect afterwards for a few seconds. If you really want to piss everyone off, then the 'Mario Maker Drunk effect' should be perfect. The aircraft is still intact, but the unholy, the weak, the desperate, and the devilish forces of the paddle will be kept at bay

Edited January 19 by nikoel

[Pavlin_33]

I think it should be the same like Su-27 and F-15 for example: rated G, times 150% and that's it. Then everyone would be on the same page and we would not need to get into the whole metal fatigue argument. What we currently have is aircraft being rated lower G in the manuals, but pulling more G than some other platforms that have higher G limits on paper.

[GGTharos]

The eagle and flanker are definitely subject to repeated stress reducing airframe tolerance.

[Exorcet]

On 1/13/2024 at 12:09 PM, jakm75 said:

if I have a tank, on a hornet, with another 3000 pounds added to the center of a wing and pull 14Gs in a hornet... it doesn't take a scientist to tell you that 14*3k= 42,000 pounds of force, in one area, pulling the wing down. That's the equivelent to a whole other plane, in addition to the rest of the wing pulling down on it. I don't need a major in material science to tell you what happens when that much force is exerted on 'steel' let alone the softer and 'not as strong' alloy that the least of your worries is a 'bent wing'.

But hey, if you think a dinky wing off a hornet can hold upwards of 42k+ pounds of force with no damage.. be my guest and do a similar test IRL.

 

Maybe some material sciences courses would help you communicate the problem. 42,000 lbs isn't bending the wing, it's a force not a moment. The Empire State Building weighs 730,000,000 lbs. It's doing fine. The wings have to hold more than the tank anyway, there is a 25,000 lbs (or whatever) plane attached to them. At 14g, that's 350,000 lbs, a lot more than the tank. And the tank itself is going to be inboard because that's where the wing is stronger.

[BIGNEWY]

Folks I have locked the topic, remember our rules when posting, if you have actual evidence feel free to PM me. 

thank you