[CORRECT AS IS] G limits using weapons

There will be a limit to the G’s you can pull with weapons ? And this limit will be dinamic? For example if I carry bombs I can pull so many G’s without any weapon’s system fail and this is unrealistic . I know f-16 is in developed, it is only a question cause I found nothing about in the feature developed infos

Thanks

EDIT: my fault , When I ask about limit I don’t talk about a system but about the damage for over G the aircraft with weapons load

There will be a limit to the G’s you can pull with weapons ? And this limit will be dinamic? For example if I carry bombs I can pull so many G’s without any weapon’s system fail and this is unrealistic . I know f-16 is in developed, it is only a question cause I found nothing about in the feature developed infos

Thanks

The real aircraft has no G limiting system like the F-18, so it’s perfectly possible to over stress the weapons any any time. Putting the jet into CAT-III minimises you chances of doing this by limiting pitch rate and AoA but it is still possible to pull past the G limit for the current payload. Ultimately your G limiter is your right hand.

What is currently not featured (but I hope gets added down the line) is stores damage from over G. So currently you can pull 9G on a heavily loaded jet with no negative consequences, hopefully that’ll change in the future and you’ll end up damaging weapons or pylons and resulting in hung stores or even ripping bombs off the jet (realistic? Dunno).

F/16 FBW does not use G/limitations. Insteed it uses AoA limitations... So in other words, you can pullall the G you like, as long as your AoA is inside the flight envolope. However, you are adviced, to usse the cat config switch on your left panel, to help you, so you dont overstress stuff.

The real aircraft has no G limiting system like the F-18, so it’s perfectly possible to over stress the weapons any any time. Putting the jet into CAT-III minimises you chances of doing this by limiting pitch rate and AoA but it is still possible to pull past the G limit for the current payload. Ultimately your G limiter is your right hand.

 

What is currently not featured (but I hope gets added down the line) is stores damage from over G. So currently you can pull 9G on a heavily loaded jet with no negative consequences, hopefully that’ll change in the future and you’ll end up damaging weapons or pylons and resulting in hung stores or even ripping bombs off the jet (realistic? Dunno).

Excuse me I have expressed myself badly, I know that f-16 have no limitation in reality , My question was about the damaging with over G , as you stated in the second part of your reply,

I meant just that, thank you

Keep in mind that weapons being damages is not always the case in Real Life after they are over-g.

I have seen 370g wing tanks, rocket pods, AN/AAQ-13/14/28/33, AN/AAQ-131/184, TER, etc. being over-g. Not once did I see weapons being damaged. Most time the pilots notice and over-g condition while debriefing and looking at AVTR video, so they let us know. We inspect the aircraft depending of the severity of the over-g and removed any equipment to be inspected in back shops. I have heard of BDU-33 separating/dropping in flight after a over-g but I never saw an official report on it.

So the way it is represented on other sims is not accurate neither. I think the way it is in the DCS MIG-21 Bis module, where if you over-G store they just separate from the aircraft, would be good.

Keep in mind that weapons being damages is not always the case in Real Life after they are over-g.

 

I have seen 370g wing tanks, rocket pods, AN/AAQ-13/14/28/33, AN/AAQ-131/184, TER, etc. being over-g. Not once did I see weapons being damaged. Most time the pilots notice and over-g condition while debriefing and looking at AVTR video, so they let us know. We inspect the aircraft depending of the severity of the over-g and removed any equipment to be inspected in back shops. I have heard of BDU-33 separating/dropping in flight after a over-g but I never saw an official report on it.

 

So the way it is represented on other sims is not accurate neither. I think the way it is in the DCS MIG-21 Bis module, where if you over-G store they just separate from the aircraft, would be good.

Thanks for the informations

So there are actually a lot of things that are going on here with Weapons and jet configurations with regard to over G. Typically, bombs themselves are not going to be damaged by over g - it's pretty hard to bend a MK-84 bomb body. Although you could bend the fins. But on some of the more sensitive weapons such as JDAM or JSOW, HARM, LGB seeker head, etc - you could certainly damage the electronics if it was severe enough. Typically - all A/A missiles are rated to the G-limit of the aircraft. So over g'ing them is unlikely before you bend or break the aircraft. What usually happens in an over-G event is the stores pylons are the first to be stressed, then the wings and the fuselage. If bad enough, the MX guys might even have to pull the motor and inspect the engine mounts or inspect the wing mounts, etc. There would be a LOT of panels to open in a severe over-G event and the MX guys would be less than impressed with the pilot, who would typically be required to bring cases of beer and grab a speed wrench to start opening panels. :doh:

The one thing does not appear to be modeled in DCS is "over speed". All A/G weapons have both carriage and employment limits, usually expressed as a Mach #. Carriage means to what is the max speed you can carry the weapons around. Employment = what is the max speed when they physically separate from the jet. If you exceed the carriage limit, you could damage the weapon itself due to the turbulence and airflow around the jet and bomb. Stuff like PWII seeker heads are particularly vulnerable, but all the fuzes, arming wires, control fins, GPS antennas and stuff are all part of the equation. Employment limits are so the weapon itself separates from the jet in a proper and safe manner ("safe separation") when you hit the pickle button and so they don't tumble inflight or worse case smack the jet itself when being released. Again, most all A/A missiles are rated to the limits of the aircraft itself, so usually not an issue.

 

So the way it is represented on other sims is not accurate neither. I think the way it is in the DCS MIG-21 Bis module, where if you over-G store they just separate from the aircraft, would be good.

Unless that is a specific feature of the MIG-21 IRL, I doubt that is realistic at all. If you over G'd the jet to the point where you're ripping bombs off, you have bigger issues to worry about because the pylon and pieces of the wing/fuselage are going to go with it.

Unless that is a specific feature of the MIG-21 IRL, I doubt that is realistic at all. If you over G'd the jet to the point where you're ripping bombs off, you have bigger issues to worry about because the pylon and pieces of the wing/fuselage are going to go with it.

You’re right as per usual. But what would you suggest as a sensible deterrent to stop people over stressing the stores? As can be seen from the whole “F-18 G-Limiter override” paddle people will use whatever capability the aircraft has regardless of its realism or real world consequences, and unfortunately there is currently no consequences to pulling 9G on a 5.5G limited config. I’d personally like to see the appropriately affected stores become hung and un-droppable if you grossly over stress them, say 6.5G on a 5.5G limited config for instance. There needs to be some immediate risk involved in order for people to pay attention to what G they are pulling as they’d have to in real life. In the M2000 you also rip stores clean off the aircraft if you flick it into AA config and pull as hard as you can.

If bad enough, the MX guys might even have to pull the motor and inspect the engine mounts or inspect the wing mounts, etc. There would be a LOT of panels to open in a severe over-G event and the MX guys would be less than impressed with the pilot, who would typically be required to bring cases of beer and grab a speed wrench to start opening panels. :doh:

I've seen many over Gs yet never saw one even remotely bad enough to inspect the engine mounts or wing bolts. That would have to be one hell of an over G.

Pilots buying beverages? Sure seen that. Pilots turning speed handles with the maintainers? Can only speak for the USAF but that never happens.

I've seen many over Gs yet never saw one even remotely bad enough to inspect the engine mounts or wing bolts. That would have to be one hell of an over G.

 

Pilots buying beverages? Sure seen that. Pilots turning speed handles with the maintainers? Can only speak for the USAF but that never happens.

Sir, thank you for your reply, my observation is: never seen doesn't mean it can't happen, a simulator should simulate what will happen according to a physical and mathematical model , and should consider situation rarely encountered in reality due to fact that many of us are not real pilots with real training and have not the physical sensation of flying on our body . We all love this simulator but we also have to be impartial in judging it , this impartiality will spur the developers to do it better and better .It will be interesting to know the opinion of one aeronautical engineer about this behavior of our simulator .

Sir, thank you for your reply, my observation is: never seen doesn't mean it can't happen, a simulator should simulate what will happen according to a physical and mathematical model , and should consider situation rarely encountered in reality due to fact that many of us are not real pilots with real training and have not the physical sensation of flying on our body . We all love this simulator but we also have to be impartial in judging it , this impartiality will spur the developers to do it better and better .It will be interesting to know the opinion of one aeronautical engineer about this behavior of our simulator .

The problem with this post is that flying an aircraft one time abusing it like this WON'T break the aircraft. How would I know? In two of my three incentive flights I had in the F-16 they would leave the switch in Cat 1 so that we could pull 9 Gs and doing so with air to ground configurations. Did the aircraft break simply due to pulling 9 Gs with wing tanks and SUU/TERs with BDU-33s loaded? Nope.

Sims tend to put in artificial breaks for over G due to the simple fact that ASIP programs and phased maintenance and maintaining a real airframe over it's lifetime isn't even a thing in any sim I've ever seen. So putting in a "punishment" for over G is a short cut way of dealing with that. But it isn't realistic.

I've seen many over Gs yet never saw one even remotely bad enough to inspect the engine mounts or wing bolts. That would have to be one hell of an over G.

 

Pilots buying beverages? Sure seen that. Pilots turning speed handles with the maintainers? Can only speak for the USAF but that never happens.

I've seen both happen (pull the motor and pilots turning wrenches) on another platform. In the later case it was a young wingman 1Lt who was being stupid. The Sq/CC sent him out to the hanger and told him to help pull panels as penance for his buffoonery. I think he got 2 or 3 screws out before the crew chief said thanks but please go away.

I've seen both happen (pull the motor and pilots turning wrenches) on another platform. In the later case it was a young wingman 1Lt who was being stupid. The Sq/CC sent him out to the hanger and told him to help pull panels as penance for his buffoonery. I think he got 2 or 3 screws out before the crew chief said thanks but please go away.

Yeah sounds about right. Notso I’d appreciate your opinion on my earlier post about what in your opinion would be the right way to model it.

The problem with this post is that flying an aircraft one time abusing it like this WON'T break the aircraft. How would I know? In two of my three incentive flights I had in the F-16 they would leave the switch in Cat 1 so that we could pull 9 Gs and doing so with air to ground configurations. Did the aircraft break simply due to pulling 9 Gs with wing tanks and SUU/TERs with BDU-33s loaded? Nope.

 

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.

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. .

The CAT switch is Not a G-limiter, it’s a departure protection device. Which limits roll rate, AoA, pitch rate and rudder authority above a certain AoA, the one thing it doesn’t do is directly limit the G you can pull. A jet in CAT-III can pull 9.3G just like a CAT-I jet, if it has the energy available and it can do it without hitting the AoA limit first. It’s primarily there to stop pilots getting into the high AoA regime (beyond 16 degrees) where a loaded jet becomes more prone to departure. Same reason for the roll rate and rudder limit. It is NOT designed to allow you to pull as hard as you like without worrying about over stressing the stores, you still have to manually monitor what G you’re pulling just as you would in CAT-I.

As for pilots flying CAT-III loaded jets in CAT-I, I dunno about nowadays but I know from first hand accounts that it happened a whole lot in the past as people were just cognisant of the fact they were flying a loaded jet and flew it to the config G-limit, just like you’d have to do in CAT-III anyway. Of course the F-16 has been around for a long time and the way people are trained to fly them also change, so I’d bet that probably doesn’t happen much any more.

The CAT switch is Not a G-limiter, it’s a departure protection device. Which limits roll rate, AoA, pitch rate and rudder authority above a certain AoA, the one thing it doesn’t do is directly limit the G you can pull. A jet in CAT-III can pull 9.3G just like a CAT-I jet, if it has the energy available and it can do it without hitting the AoA limit first. As for pilots flying CAT-III loaded jets in CAT-I, I dunno about nowadays but I know from first hand accounts that it happened a whole lot in the past as people were just cognisant of the fact they were flying a loaded jet and didn’t feel the need to use it. Of course the F-16 has been around for a long time and the way people are trained to fly them also change, so I’d bet that probably doesn’t happen much any more.

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.

You’re right as per usual. But what would you suggest as a sensible deterrent to stop people over stressing the stores? As can be seen from the whole “F-18 G-Limiter override” paddle people will use whatever capability the aircraft has regardless of its realism or real world consequences, and unfortunately there is currently no consequences to pulling 9G on a 5.5G limited config. I’d personally like to see the appropriately affected stores become hung and un-droppable if you grossly over stress them, say 6.5G on a 5.5G limited config for instance. There needs to be some immediate risk involved in order for people to pay attention to what G they are pulling as they’d have to in real life. In the M2000 you also rip stores clean off the aircraft if you flick it into AA config and pull as hard as you can.

My suggestion to model an Over-G situation in the Sim would be to have a code that then causes a random effect to be generated such that the following things could happen depending on the configuration:

1. Nothing, everything works normal (because sometimes an over-g isn't that severe)

2. Hung stores

3. External tank doesn't feed correctly

4. Weapon failures in flight resulting in a miss (seeker failure / fin failure, etc)

5. Stores that impact the jet during separation

I don't know enough about the viper to know how it's over-G logic works. I would assume Betty would yell "Over-G, Over-G" if you exceeded the limits. If so, that warning could trigger the random effect(s) above and as well the pilot would know that something bad could happen, and that employing weapons or jettisoning tanks/bombs might have a bad effect.

Aside from the G-effects, it would be interesting to have just random failures like Hung bombs or misses due to just general weapon failures. Sometimes shit happens and you have to be able to deal with whatever fate throws you.

My suggestion to model an Over-G situation in the Sim would be to have a code that then causes a random effect to be generated such that the following things could happen depending on the configuration:

 

1. Nothing, everything works normal (because sometimes an over-g isn't that severe)

2. Hung stores

3. External tank doesn't feed correctly

4. Weapon failures in flight resulting in a miss (seeker failure / fin failure, etc)

5. Stores that impact the jet during separation

 

I don't know enough about the viper to know how it's over-G logic works. I would assume Betty would yell "Over-G, Over-G" if you exceeded the limits. If so, that warning could trigger the random effect(s) above and as well the pilot would know that something bad could happen, and that employing weapons or jettisoning tanks/bombs might have a bad effect.

 

Aside from the G-effects, it would be interesting to have just random failures like Hung bombs or misses due to just general weapon failures. Sometimes shit happens and you have to be able to deal with whatever fate throws you.

Good point

DCS is able to simulate hung and damaged stores, at least to the point that the weapon becomes inoperable and unable to be launched. It's already implemented in the JF-17 for A2G weapons and in the A-10C for incorrect release of JDAMs (bad separation).

My suggestion to model an Over-G situation in the Sim would be to have a code that then causes a random effect to be generated such that the following things could happen depending on the configuration:

 

1. Nothing, everything works normal (because sometimes an over-g isn't that severe)

2. Hung stores

3. External tank doesn't feed correctly

4. Weapon failures in flight resulting in a miss (seeker failure / fin failure, etc)

5. Stores that impact the jet during separation

 

I don't know enough about the viper to know how it's over-G logic works. I would assume Betty would yell "Over-G, Over-G" if you exceeded the limits. If so, that warning could trigger the random effect(s) above and as well the pilot would know that something bad could happen, and that employing weapons or jettisoning tanks/bombs might have a bad effect.

 

Aside from the G-effects, it would be interesting to have just random failures like Hung bombs or misses due to just general weapon failures. Sometimes shit happens and you have to be able to deal with whatever fate throws you.

All great ideas!:D

I don't know enough about the viper to know how it's over-G logic works. I would assume Betty would yell "Over-G, Over-G" if you exceeded the limits. If so, that warning could trigger the random effect(s) above and as well the pilot would know that something bad could happen, and that employing weapons or jettisoning tanks/bombs might have a bad effect.

We have no way of knowing about the over-G condition if the pilot does not report it. At least we didn't back in 07.

I have seen two over-g bad enough that the pilot came back to the flight line to work on the jet. First was TDY to Decimomannu AB from Aviano AB. Pilot was doing BFM training, got the aircraft stuck at high alpha. He over G it on the recovery.

Second over-g was TDY to Eielson AFB from Kunsan AB back in 2008. Pilot got target fixated on a rocket run, over-G the rocket pods and the TGP and the aircraft.

On both occasion we did not find anything wrong with the aircraft. I could not tell you about the stores since we just take them off and send them to back shop.

Whether ED adds effect or not to the over-g is fine to me.

So the Viper does not record the maximum reached g? Really?

I didn't expect that. I've seen some fighters while in the military and most of them recorded g in some way or the other.

So the Viper does not record the maximum reached g? Really?

I didn't expect that. I've seen some fighters while in the military and most of them recorded g in some way or the other.

It does in the HUD Afaik... perhaps that gets reset upon shutdown?

Only had to perform a wing bolt inspection once after an over-g. I can’t remember if it was a/a or a/g configured jet though.