F-14 Able to Pull Very High G-forces

[ColdClaws]

The F-14 is capable of pulling extremely high g loads well over 10g almost to 18g without ripping the plane or blacking out the pilot. I have a track file and Tacview of me attempting to recreate it. I have also attached videos and tacviews of players on multiplayer servers pulling absurdly high g loads without ripping and all but one avoid blacking out.

 

 

Tacview-20250106-025318-DCS-f14 g load track.trk.zip.acmi f14 g load track.trk f14 g pull tacview.txt.acmi

[Creampie]

This really needs adressed.

[DSplayer]

2 hours ago, ColdClaws said:

The F-14 is capable of pulling extremely high g loads well over 10g almost to 18g without ripping the plane or blacking out the pilot. I have a track file and Tacview of me attempting to recreate it. I have also attached videos and tacviews of players on multiplayer servers pulling absurdly high g loads without ripping and all but one avoid blacking out.

 

 

Tacview-20250106-025318-DCS-f14 g load track.trk.zip.acmi 30.37 kB · 3 downloads f14 g load track.trk 255.63 kB · 3 downloads f14 g pull tacview.txt.acmi 1.07 MB · 3 downloads

The F-14 was actually tested to withstand a high symmetrical G load as explained by this Grumman test pilot (timestamped 56:17):

For the problem regarding pilot G loads, I suspect this might be a DCS core issue since I was able to pull and sustain around 12Gs in the F-15C and F/A-18C (immortal enabled since I was testing out the pilot G limits) and didn't completely blackout until a good amount of time had elapsed. This duration of time was similar to what you had achieved in your track in the F-14.

[Spurts]

Yes, the plane was tested to 12G by Grumman, and above a certain AoA the wing stalls and the body is doing the lifting so the risk of wings snapping goes away.  18G may be possible, but you just shattered your INS and maybe some other systems too. 

 

As to the blackout, it does seem like the blackout model assumes you never exceed 9 G. The current model is still better than the previous one 

[Ivandrov]

You can indeed get the INS to fail by over-g before the wings snap.

 

Something to keep in mind along with what was mentioned already, exceeding G-limits on a plane does not nescessarily mean imminent catastrophic failure. The degree, duration and the overall configuration of the plane are important to what damage, if any, the plane sustains.

 

We get to sidestep a lot of those potential issues with a fresh new plane for free everytime we spawn.

Edited January 6 by Ivandrov

[captain_dalan]

No perceived differences in both planes that i can over-g and are still considered fully fidelity. The Mirage and the F-16 are FBW restricted. 10-11s before blackout in the F-14 and 13-14s in the F-18, but i pulled slightly more in the former:
 

As for plane damage, i can overspeed the flaps and melt my gyro by over-g in the F-14 if i'm not careful, while in the meantime i can pull on the paddle in the F-18 until the heat death of the universe, and nothing will happen to the plane. What seems to be the problem again? 

EDIT: Do FC3 planes cause the pilot to blackout sooner or something? I'm not sure i get what the OP is trying so say? 

Edited January 7 by captain_dalan

[draconus]

4 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

I'm not sure i get what the OP is trying so say?

They think it should just fall apart. They wanted the same for F-15C and others.

[captain_dalan]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

They think it should just fall apart. They wanted the same for F-15C and others.

I guess some things never change.

[Creampie]

9 hours ago, draconus said:

They think it should just fall apart. They wanted the same for F-15C and others.

I don't think having a concern of an airframe consistently being able to manage 15 & 18G pulls correlates to someone being under the impression that a module should just fall apart.

It does correlate to expecting blackouts, INS failures, module damage a little more than 10% of the time. No matter the opinion of how anyone thinks it should be, This is performance is just incorrectly implemented.

[Ivandrov]

1 hour ago, Creampie said:

I don't think having a concern of an airframe consistently being able to manage 15 & 18G pulls correlates to someone being under the impression that a module should just fall apart.

It does correlate to expecting blackouts, INS failures, module damage a little more than 10% of the time. No matter the opinion of how anyone thinks it should be, This is performance is just incorrectly implemented.

You'll get varrying INS failures in the 13-14g turn range pretty consistently. Definitely more common than 10%.

 

And unless you have IRL data or testimony to add to suggest otherwise, your expectations of what it should be are also just your opinion.

Edited January 8 by Ivandrov

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Creampie said:

airframe consistently being able to manage 15 & 18G pulls

There were 2 4s G excursions presented - up to 12 and 18 G. I'm pretty sure the INS were broken after that and they were just shy of breaking the wings in next try. I'd expect the blackout in the seconds case though and maybe indeed the wings separation. And we were told many times you can't trust tacview numbers, esp. including MP. Can you reproduce that in SP? Save the track and upload here.

Edited January 8 by draconus

[Creampie]

6 minutes ago, Ivandrov said:

You'll get varrying INS failures in the 13-14g turn range pretty consistently. Definitely more common than 10%.

 

And unless you have IRL data or testimony to add to suggest otherwise, your expectations of what it should be are also just your opinion.

 

Pilots and the airframe in itself not being able to consistently pull 12g+ manuevers without damage or blackouts is not an opinion. 

[Ivandrov]

Just now, Creampie said:

 

Pilots and the airframe in itself not being able to consistently pull 12g+ manuevers without damage or blackouts is not an opinion. 

 

I was not able to complete even a 180 turn at 12 g's without blacking out.

[Nealius]

1 hour ago, Creampie said:

Pilots and the airframe in itself not being able to consistently pull 12g+ manuevers without damage or blackouts is not an opinion.

Pilots are not going to be "damaged" by 12+ G. Red Bull air racing pilots routinely pull up to 12G. Flanagan Gray went up to 35G before suffering a hernia. The only rational argument you have is GLOC, and even that depends on pilot body type, general physical fitness, specific fitness the day of the flight, how well they perform the "hick" maneuver, or even how hydrated or dehydrated they are at the time of pulling G.

Edited January 8 by Nealius

[Snappy]

On 1/8/2025 at 9:27 AM, Nealius said:

Pilots are not going to be "damaged" by 12+ G. Red Bull air racing pilots routinely pull up to 12G. Flanagan Gray went up to 35G before suffering a hernia. The only rational argument you have is GLOC, and even that depends on pilot body type, general physical fitness, specific fitness the day of the flight, how well they perform the "hick" maneuver, or even how hydrated or dehydrated they are at the time of pulling G.

This is a weird argument to make , especially since Red Bull introduced a 10G limit back in 2014 already , for safety reasons.

Exceeding it results in DNF-disqualification from the race

Edited January 24 by Snappy

[Nealius]

16 hours ago, Snappy said:

This is a weird argument to make , especially since Red Bull introduced a 10G limit back in 2014 already , for safety reasons.

Your premise relies on 2014 civilian regulations being applied to 1975-2006 military use, and it still doesn't address the empirical facts regarding G tolerance of the human body or of airframes. To strengthen your argument I suggest you detail what those "safety reasons" were.

Edited January 25 by Nealius

[Snappy]

On 1/25/2025 at 3:59 AM, Nealius said:

Your premise relies on 2014 civilian regulations being applied to 1975-2006 military use, and it still doesn't address the empirical facts regarding G tolerance of the human body or of airframes. To strengthen your argument I suggest you detail what those "safety reasons" were.

So, A) it’s not „my premise“  or „my argument“, I don’t need to strengthen anything, it’s a limit set by Red Bull for their racing in direct contradiction to your claim that red bull pilots routinely pull 12G.
And B) as for the safety reasons, here straight from the  horses mouth, 3:30 onwards, surprise , it’s due to issues with strength of the airplane and it’s structure.

Not sure why you mention empirical facts, when you were bringing anecdotal claims about exceedences so far.

Edited January 27 by Snappy

[Ivandrov]

That's great and all but the only reason why Red Bull was mentioned in the first place was for pilot endurance against G's not for the structural limitations of the plane as it is obviously not a Tomcat they are flying around.