Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Basher54321

  1. Ran it around in free flight clean and for whatever reason maybe luck seems pretty good to me - in the transonic region at low alts breaking 11G - 12.5G - but at lower speeds cannot generate the Gs for this to be any concern. There is no point referencing reality when reality involves flying under 7.33G which is the max G limit clean. It sounds like DCS gamers have got used to ignoring limits and flying it like an arcade game. (Any perceived structural margin is NOT your limit!!) Relax the stick / changing the pitch curves might help. Maybe a G indicator option on screen all the time might help. The T-38 was built to an initial 15000 hour lifetime and 7.33G at 50% fuel and has clearly been used as intended if it is still in use today - also going through various structure upgrade programs. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/612443/maintainers-extend-life-of-t-38-talon/. The F-5E is a different aircraft with an initial 8000 hour lifetime and built to 7.33G at 100% internal fuel.
  2. Simplistically if max design G was 7.5 then all bets would be off over 11.3G and anything could structurally fail (on a new aircraft) But if anyone can get an F-14 structural engineer to confirm the design (and not Mike Ciminera who doesn't appear to know)
  3. No they don't need to test to breaking point. Ultimately the customer (eg USN/USAF) writes a spec that includes all the required limits for the desired aircraft including lifetime and intended usage etc. If say they specify 8G clean at X weight then that is what the aircraft will be built to. However there is a standard safety margin that means a part must not break at 150% over the required load limit. So simplistic example - say I want my plane to be 8G then parts will be stress tested to 150% of that (12G). My take from the 777 video is you can hear them cheer when the part hits 150% - but the part fails however at only 4% past this that is why you got to see it break. Often they never see the part break because it only needs to not break up to 150% - so they don't continue stressing it because 150% meets the requirement. This means that if someone pulls say 12G+ in your 8G jet you would expect loss of aircraft but there is no simple answer as to what breaks because they usually don't know - These things are on a time and cost budget of course. If you pull say 10G well it might be okay on one occasion but another time someone pulls it at a different weight they can put the jet out of action when you need it - again there is no simple answer. All aircraft are designed and built to specification - and that is the entire aircraft not just the engine or whatever - for example F-14/15 might be able to go through their design limit of 800kts but nothing on the jet is certified to do it so a pilot going over the limits is usually nothing more than a test pilot. Source is an ex structural engineer who worked on some very iconic USAF/USN Jet fighters.
  4. Cant say - according to someone who flew the MiG-29G for two years on exchange they had the full up Soviet radar for example. (East Germany being on the front might have been an exception) The engines were not detuned as such - there is a switch that the ground crew can set to put the engines in one of three modes (also in the flight manual). They generally had them on the lower power setting to increase lifetime but obviously whacked them up to full power for deployments to do DACT etc.
  5. What he is saying is that sometime probably after 1992 a number of US F-16s were made Sparrow capable based on his experience with them on his USAF squadron. AMRAAM was FOC in mid 1992 - an F-16D shot down an Iraqi MiG-25PDS later that year with an AIM-120A. NYANG and SCANG flew Block 10s during Desert Storm and very successfully too.
  6. The latest patch has broken this on Open Beta for me Nalchick now has a load of objects on the taxiways. The MiG 29 start positions look wrong (closest is player): MiGs ran into objects on attempt one. Reset Campaign and wingman would not budge. Tried mission 2 and wingmen moved a bit and then were as stumped as a self driving car as presumably they couldn't comprehend any of these strange objects.
  7. That was never a thing - there are various tactical and operational manuals on the AIM-9B including an entire paper written by John Boyd on its real world limitations when using it. There are also a ton of declass firings of the thing that make no mention and Robin Olds would have ripped it apart the way he did the AIM-4 as being not FFP. Two of the things that could cause a delay in getting the correct signal: 1. Damage to the missile from vibration/weather/rain /hail. 2. Humidity levels in the atmosphere. IR missiles are clear weather missiles only - and these two ideally needed to be fired with no background IR radiation such as clouds, the sun or the ground / water. Then pray the missile actually doesn't hang and doesn't just fly off into the Ether anyway. The AIM-9B/R-3S both used by Israel who were of the opinion the R-3S was overall comparable to the AIM-9B. Firing these missiles should not be easy you had to work at it - the first 14 combat firings of the R-3S for the VPAF all missed. Check out the Osprey books by István Toperczer based on data from the VPAFs war records and there is also a set on the USAF jets over Nam all based on declass stuff like Red Baron etc. It is understandable why you would make these missiles gamey for a game because the players want their missiles to hit.
  8. Okay well have it your way........if your entire argument boils down to "my plane better then your plane" then clearly as you demonstrated thus far any kind of debate is beyond you. You moaned about people not doing their homework and when you are picked up on one of the things you got totally wrong (not the only thing) - all they get is a tirade of 2 second Google searches and abuse. But please feel free to keep digging that grave you are in.
  9. You still don’t seem to be on the same page........and I definitely prefer cook ups to the other personally :) Do you see (again my original first point) that regardless of the document and the recommendations being discussed here that if the customer had wanted high AoA capability then General Dynamics would have had to do some redesign work whether it be to go back to twin tails etc etc. Likewise if the USAF had insisted on keeping the initial M2.5 speed requirement (according to Harry Hillaker) they would have had to put on a variable intake etc etc to ensure it got there. So "recommendations" are not typically "final orders" - the aircraft design and capability is determined by the agreed requirements with the customer and the customer (USAF) got what they wanted despite the Deep stall thing you are hung up on ;). Okay so going through the NASA papers from the HAPT program they seem to be evaluating a conventional F-16 model at High Alpha not one with Thrust Vectoring and they keep referring to the well known Deep Stall issues of old. Remember that we are only talking about an F-16 upgrade here so if NASA chose to evaluate an F-18 that has nothing to do with the F-16 concern. Do you have anything to expand on that clip you posted regarding VISTA? For VISTA they put in a conventional engine and convert it back to what it does which was to mimic and test flight control systems. I only mentioned one of the given reasons why they didn’t bother with TV (by one of the Lockheed test pilots) but no doubt politics and budget also came into it. The source for the previous quote is Lockheed and it refers to phase III of the MATV program that ended March 94 that involved a lot of real world slow speed high alpha BFM - and they couldn’t have done that if deep stall was still an issue with TV. You should have no issues finding good info on it - if not send me a PM.
  10. Okay so you are about a million miles off. The point that has gone straight over your head is that aircraft (any) are designed based on operational requirements and needs thus those reports may well provide such recommendations - however the aircraft already met the desired requirements for AoA so that was of little concern. It looked like to me you were trying to make out it was limited due to poor aircraft design when that in reality had nothing to do with it. (I have to assume you are referring to something like NASAs Aerodynamic Characteristics of Forebody and Nose Strakes as you have not provided any reference.) Yes the AoA limiter is set at a Max of 25 degrees whereas the F-16s CL Max is around 35 degrees. No the F-16 MATV in actual fact was a USAF/ Lockheed / GE program. VISTA was actually a separate project (despite using the same air frame ) that might be why there are some sources confusing it with NASA involvement. Pilots from the F-16 Combined Test Force at Edwards and from the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis AFB, Nevada, completed more than 260 tactical engagements during the tactical phase of the testing. FACT - It had no AoA limiter and demonstrated 80+ degrees stable and 120+ degrees transient. HOBS missiles were being developed in the early 90s at the time of the program. The point being however that it was a viable and proven option to give the fleet F-16s high Alpha capability that they didn't want to go with. Please be aware that there is quite a lot in your replies that could also be put down to pure fanboyism - if you don't want to listen then fine by me.
  11. False The only reason it is AoA limited is because there was no need for high AoA over 25 degrees - in fact it was perfect for what they needed at the time. If the USAF wanted higher AoA the F-16 would have met that simple as - regardless of how different it may have been. You are probably not aware that the YF-17 had a far higher alpha capability - it however didn't meet the actual desired combat parameters. Incidentally you mean "Deep Stall" not "Super Stall" You also seem oblivious to the F-16 MATV that had no AoA limiter and no deep stall problems - however they determined HOBS missiles to be more useful......
  12. This campaign was very good - probably the best - I had to Google map Beny-Sur-Mer perhaps I missed something. Same as the others 2.5.6 has definitely added bloat in there - in the past the bloat has often been there to stay in some games. Hopefully this is down to a bug and not just down to some lighting effects nobody needed - or at least nothing should come above performance to be causing issues like this at the higher end.
  13. Hello Yes you are basically correct - however what I am primarily referring to here is a CAT III loading that is more likely to cause actual structural problems when going past the AG stores manual G limit of 5.5G etc for example. The F-16 originally didn't have a CAT switch at all and there was even a CAT II loading at one point (not a physical switch) - and yes plenty of pilots claim to have kept flying CAT 1 regardless - but there are some good reasons why it can be a bad idea.
  14. Wow nice you got the opportunity! On the subject of over G if you asked one of the LockMart engineers on the matter they would likely tell you that you probably didn't damage anything during the rides. Either the SUU or TERs with BDUs should be well under any actual pylon/attachment structural limit despite being a paper over G and the 370 Tanks are 9G when empty anyway. As I understand it there sure are AG loadings that will cause proper Over G and cause loss of lifetime however because they are apparently only tested to a set G limit, no one knows if anything will break or not over that - which might also depend on the airframe. So for that and another reason any pilot flinging a heavy CAT III in CAT I while ignoring the manual limits I have been told is not only stupid it is also unlikely. Someone mentioned a BDU-33 coming off during a over G, have heard from others the bomb fuses can fail as well - even though structurally the F-16 was okay in each case. Wouldn't expect to see this in a video game - appreciation of the limits seems a good compromise.
  15. No 600G tanks in 1981. Photos from Pre mission clearly show 2 x 370 tanks and 1 x 300G tank and they were all jettisoned before the target. Note that the A had better range.
  16. Unlikely, all F-16s are limited by the inlet at altitude and below that more a case of thrust v drag. The N was a small mouth block 30 having less thrust than the bigmouth block 30 and block 40 to 60. Even the A models could go over M1 in some conditions - the N was sold at rock bottom dollar yet replace a gun with ballast and voila super plane! If instead talking about quickest then my money is still on the block 60 despite the weight - start your drag race at the same int fuel and even stick on empty CFTs - bet it would still eat that lot - get me the charts LOL :thumbup:
  17. Hi Steve - thanks for the great books over the years. Clearly I didn't get my point across very well as I was talking about the difficulty in trying to convey the simplicity of a static chart into a 3D manoeuvring environment. Anyway on your points: Yes 1 & 2 consistent with talking to pilots - performance can differ greatly over the years on a per airframe basis with structural weight gain and loss of thrust for whatever reason etc. Clearly if the chart is not recalculated to account then it will be off. However an EM chart is not simply about picking off a few absolute values - most of the flight envelope should still be achievable. No 3 - depends doesn't it - in the case described from a verified F-15C pilot then yes not a problem. Not sure why you are interpreting that as don't believe a word they say when there are thousands of interviews out there and more than a few can legitimately be called to question.
  18. I think the problem with EM charts is probably not fantasy as such it is firstly they only show a snapshot of a dynamic 3D environment, and secondly they are not showing all the relevant factors to convey the big picture as such that a Pilot knows about through experience. So pilots really can give a view of how things really are - on the other hand it is anecdotal whereas if I need to do a flight model I first need figures that would come from flight testing and then would hope to get a pilot to check it out. Of course this doesn't mean that pilots will always give accurate or unbiased information in interviews etc - this is really not easy for both sides.
  19. Unless you have EM charts for those aircraft you are mostly just blowing into the wind - EM charts were partly created to compare aircraft on basic metrics like STR and ITR. Airshows: your eyes cannot determine in any way things like Vertical Velocity, weight, AoA, Velocity etc etc from looking at a flying object thus it is mostly useless for comparison. That chart is not just fishy it is ludicrous and it actually originated from another journalist as part of the anti F-35 BS that was flying around for years. The purpose of the chart is to show some aircraft in a good light and others in a bad light - safe in the knowledge that 95% of the readers (100% of the DailyCaller readers) don't know what they are looking at. ITR and STR are variables and the best way to picture what happens to these throughout a flight envelope is to get hold of some old EM charts yourself and start there. :thumbup:
  20. As I just told you - nothing to do with Oshkosh - how many times!! It is not relevant that the brakes were in working order - The guy couldn't see anything also had induced vertigo - he had thought about ejecting if it wasn't for the slight issue of the many people the jet might have ploughed into - he didn't know his speed or how far he was down the runway. Do you not understand that if he had landed normally he would have stopped 1000ft before the end of the runway and not gone off the end at 80kts. Regardless you cannot guess braking effectiveness from this in any way shape or form sorry.
  21. Yeah nothing to do with what happened at Oshkosh - to quote: If not for the lack of visual and instrument references, the MP (Mishap Pilot) could have executed a proper aerobrake, come to a complete stop on the runway, and still had approximately 1000 ft of runway remaining.
  22. Oshkosh would not be any kind of example really - the AIB report is fairly clear.
  23. The F-16A first went to squadrons in 1978 and had been in combat before the first Mirage 2000s went to squadrons in 1983. Then probably about another 4 or 5 years before it got the RDI, 530D and Magic II IIRC :thumbup:
  24. I have never used Steam and the only games I have are flight related - you think the required target demographic are general gamers and less so Aviation enthusiasts?
  • Create New...