Demistifying Eagle damage model

Demistifying Eagle damage model

Mig 21 goes down after single aim9 shot 90% of the times. Eagle takes 3 r60s 50% of the time, other it takes 2xr60. Never single shoot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's probably because R60s are crap missiles with little tiny warheads ballparkish the range of 5lbs vs an AiM-9 that has around 20lbs of explosive. R-60s suck. That's your problem. One may be a combat effective kill, rarely a k-kill. Double tap to be sure. Or use a better missile. Also, F-15 is about twice the size of a Mig-21, further exacerbating the discrepancy. For an engineer, you seem to miss some very obvious points.

Damage models are borked, that's because of the engine recode. It is not a deep state conspiracy, nor is it related to only a single aircraft.

Also, I read your OP, and while you make some good points, you can't just handwave off some of your critics here. They're not just "emotionally damaged" individuals spewing nonsense. They're quoting NASA and other legitimate sources, and even providing links!

I also remember your lovely thread about landing/takeoff in the grass, and how many people posted videos of themselves doing EXACTLY THAT. But, you got stuck one time, so clearly the game is ruined. Deep state conspiracy from the US to undermine real world mudding potential of mighty secret Soviet 4x4 fighter programs.

Based on the counter arguments made here, and your own track record of unreasonable arguments, you're spitting in the wind here. You're not a reliable source of information, despite your loud claims to the contrary :D

Doesnt have to be related but did you noticed that taxiways got little bit wider after that post as also the shelters got moved away than before? Now is litlle bit harder to get stuck then before. Check yt vieos named: 'the worst place to be a pilot' - where do they land on? This is also personal discredit try, but just richosette bullet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If youre structural or aeronautican engineer i can reconsider weight of your claims. Well are you?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/244/Appeal-to-False-Authority

If youre structural or aeronautican engineer i can reconsider weight of your claims. Well are you?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

-jet fuel is highly flammable liquid

Only when atomized

-pilot claimed that he was not aware of scale of damage after midair collision as fuel spray was continuously hiding his view. Pilot had a wingman on disposal who was also unable to determine the scale of damage. This is extremely unreal scenario as fuel from exposed tanks cannot form such wide spray zone in high velocity airstream. Damaged tank would empty its content in a matter of seconds regarding scale of damage and starboard opening.

It would definitely be venting fluids from the rest of the system, and in the case of having a midair your mind is not operating as it normally would, and would not notice if the spray isn't as far laterally as the wing would have been.

 

-pilot claimed that he was not aware of scale of damage after midair collision as fuel spray was continuously hiding his view. Pilot had a wingman on disposal who was also unable to determine the scale of damage. This is extremely unreal scenario as fuel from exposed tanks cannot form such wide spray zone in high velocity airstream. Damaged tank would empty its content in a matter of seconds regarding scale of damage and starboard opening.

 

Actually the picture you provide here disproves your theory of igniting vented fuel and damage all in one. They were belly to belly when the collision happened, A-4 climbing and F-15 descending blind to each-other. This would mean that the debris would be forced up and away of the tail. Also you can see here the fuel is not ignited, which is due to the conditions not being anywhere near ideal for ignition. There's a reason we have compressors.

Level flight in case of extremely high aerodynamic imbalance due to complete missing wing is absolutely impossible, Plane would have to roll to that remaining wing and match its lift center axis with plane remaining body axis parallel to gravity vector. Focus is on level flight. To this day, no wind tunnel test has been committed to prove this claim to be true, as matter of fact plane manufacturer engineers neglected that possibility as impossible. Logical explanation is that due to high roll momentum that plane would be impossible to balance with remaining control surfaces that had no enough authority to fight asymmetric lift generated by single remaining wing. Claiming this premise true is out of engineer’s scope as there must be a larger portion of wing remaining to counter roll momentum as root portion is generating extensively higher lift than tip.

Do I really have to explain how moment arms work to an engineer? Pretty simple stuff to understand there. You can produce 1 unit of lift at the wing root, but the quarter unit of lift at the tip will have a greater effect because it has a 15' moment arm to work off of. Higher airspeed need a lower angle of attack to maintain level flight, thus aileron control will increase the aoa on the farthest point on the wing, causing much more lift to be produced with much less control deflection at high speeds. Pilots don't examine numbers when they fly, they just do what it takes to get the performance they desire.

-pilot claimed that he was able to land safely without one wing. I already explained that plane should be tilted sideways along roll axis and that would mean that high-speed touchdown would be committed on starboard wheel first. Released friction heat amount would be tremendous knowing that landing speed was already high by scale factor of 2. Scale factor of 2 doesn’t mean double centrifugal stress on tire as acceleration force is square product of angular velocity of wheel, but exponential propagation of tensile force inside tire. That high safety margin is uneconomical as all elements of airplane tend in reduction of unnecessary weight. Tires are no exception. This case tire would break apart exposing aluminum rim to runway and highly possible ignition as rubber and aluminum are used as propulsion in SpaceX project rocket engine. Drag generated by broken lit rim would increase already high drag on starboard side of plane that would make it sideslip and roll on missing wing side leading to possible crash and fatality. Tire manufacturer touchdown limit is half of landing speed pilot said to have landed on, further ultimate stress limit would give tire ¾ of that speed life. All above is fatal for tire.

Incorrect again. The plane can be flying level because it's flying much faster than normal. The aileron will be deflected, the rudders will be deflected, but the longitudinal axis will be aligned with the runway, and lateral axis parallel to the ground. The higher speeds is precisely why this can happen.

Landing speed isn't max tire speed either. The max tire speed in my jet is about 1.7x the normal landing speed. Different tires have different tire speeds, and that number is posted as a safety margin, above that speed, all bets are off, which is similar to G limitations on aircraft as well. If you exceed it, you don't know what will happen.

As you said, keep your emotions out of it because it was an event that actually happened, and as mentioned, well documented.

Nothing but funny? Can you say that while onboard of an airliner, cruiser ship or a car thats been designed by actual engineer? Is that funny? Funny how your life is tailored by engineers that takes care for rest to stay alive and safe? That the gratitude for all hard work and effort? All that is funny to some. Next time use horseride or foot for traveling great distances. To me as an engineer is funny level of naiveness of manny people that can't counter any claim state from post start with any hard argument. Core: if pilot kicked afterburner, plane would lit in fireball 4.5 seconds later - rock solid state. That whole story is undoubtly fake. One emotionaly damaged user can only battle this post by adding tags on author itself but having no real argument to logically counter any claim of posts itself from initial claims. That's sad. Saddest thing is that ED dm coders got persuaded that this full crippled landing is actually possible further hardening eagle damake model. Such irrational attitude is not acceptible in sim worls, maybe only in fantasy game enviroment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not about the engineers, it's about this thread specifically.

Some of your explanations aren't correct. Liquid fuel does not burn, it can't be burnt. That's why the fuel is atomized before igniting. This process is known as atomization or vaporization. In a medium-sized engine to a large turbofan, we would be talking about hundreds of psi. From 800 to 1500 psi in this process of atomization. Fuel must be sprayed into a nozzle under very high pressure, even then, the spray pattern must meet specific patterns because if not, the flame may touch the combustion walls, causing hotspot or even cut thru the metal. There is a lot more to that such as energy release from the flame. An incorrect or disproportional ratio of air and fuel may result in waste. This can increase flame length, especially during the startup or when the engine is operating at lower compression ratios.

It's not just about heat and fuel. Light up a match and throw the burning match into a tank full of JetA, the fire will go out. When the fuel is in a liquid state it won't be a problem, but when its vaporized, an ignition depending on the conditions, is very likely.

He thinks ED changed the taxiways for him rofl There's no point in talking to Jack, really, he watched a deal on History Channel one time (they frequently run shows on alien abductees, too, just cause you saw it on TV doesn't make it true). He's a leading authority on whatever he happens to be ranting about at any given time, and you can't beat him down with logic or facts that contradict him :) I admire his granite-like rigidity, it doubtless comes in handy in life... on Internet forums, not so much lol

Nothing but funny? Can you say that while onboard of an airliner, cruiser ship or a car thats been designed by actual engineer? Is that funny? Funny how your life is tailored by engineers that takes care for rest to stay alive and safe? That the gratitude for all hard work and effort? All that is funny to some. Next time use horseride or foot for traveling great distances. To me as an engineer is funny level of naiveness of manny people that can't counter any claim state from post start with any hard argument. Core: if pilot kicked afterburner, plane would lit in fireball 4.5 seconds later - rock solid state. That whole story is undoubtly fake. One emotionaly damaged user can only battle this post by adding tags on author itself but having no real argument to logically counter any claim of posts itself from initial claims. That's sad. Saddest thing is that ED dm coders got persuaded that this full crippled landing is actually possible further hardening eagle damake model. Such irrational attitude is not acceptible in sim worls, maybe only in fantasy game enviroment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is almost as good as the navy seal copy pasta...

There's an issue with almost all damage models right now. I take 120s constantly that don't cripple me anymore than slight damage to engines.

However, R73s do seem especially weak.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but would't AAR be damn dangerous if it would ignite that easily ?

Plenty of videos with fuel spray going on the plane and through the turbine, and not a sign of ignition.

Example :

https://youtu.be/BZV3Ffm2qIQ?t=2m52s

Edit : also to add "some fuel to the fire", for an engineer, not many hard facts backed with calculations. Just guess work.

Here’s another history setpiece.

"Thank you, thats perfect":megalol:

Here’s another history setpiece.

It's been too long and I do not think it will change. There are no fuel leak effect also. Yesterday all the viewers and commentators on the Twitch mock this.

...The criteria are different, but I can say for myself - It would be embarrassing for me to fly persistent this NLO and in parallel present scientific facts here.

At least it's funny to catch up with something that once happened (the question is how it happened and whether it happened at all,... only once dit happen, and again if it happened) as a fact justifying the anomaly which we see every day in this _World.

Since I started with FC1.12 until today this topic about F15C is up to date. So, nothing spectacularly changed for my 10 years in this sim on this issue. :doh:

Tell me if I'm wrong, but would't AAR be damn dangerous if it would ignite that easily ?

Plenty of videos with fuel spray going on the plane and through the turbine, and not a sign of ignition.

 

Example :

https://youtu.be/BZV3Ffm2qIQ?t=2m52s

 

Edit : also to add "some fuel to the fire", for an engineer, not many hard facts backed with calculations. Just guess work.

It could but there is a limited amount of fuel being sprayed, even if it ignites it will burn very quickly. The planes are also flying at a considerable speed, maintaining a stable flame wouldn't be easy.

If the fuel goes into the engine, that's not a problem.

There is a video of an E-3 being refueled and the boom was negative charged due to the air friction. You could literally see a spark between the E-3 fuselage and the boom. The boom leaked fuel and nothing bad happened there.

The funny part is that they themselves deserved to be mocked. They're complaining about fuel leaks - but the eagle has several tanks. Which tank was leaking? Why would they assume it was all of them?

The partially destroyed wing, too - so there's an eagle that's heavily damaged and very hard to control, obviously nowhere near in shape to fight ... but they whine because it's still in the air.

Most eagles that were hit lost hydraulics in short order after the hit - yes, the aircraft didn't disintegrate, but it was destroyed anyway.

Maybe those viewers - and you - are just whiners?

It's been too long and I do not think it will change. There are no fuel leak effect also. Yesterday all the viewers and commentators on the Twitch mock this.

 

...The criteria are different, but I can say for myself - It would be embarrassing for me to fly persistent this NLO and in parallel present scientific facts here.

- jet fuel can't be atomized as jet fuel is actually carbon based long organic molecule:

Flashpoint 38degC

Autoignition 220degC

Openair burn temperature 1030degC

inside engine <800 degC

You can't atomize molecule: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atomization

but I can live with that name, even it has misleading meaning.

Conclusion: Jet fuel is very ignitable in fuel/air mixture combo.. now get out of engine.

Aluminium series 2 melting point is.....???

NATOPS FA18ABC Flight manual says: NEVER IGNITE AFTERBURNER WHILE DAMPING FUEL. STRUCTURAL DAMAGE MAY OCCUR.

- Airfoil lift curve has similar positively proportional drag curve:

Missing one wing means that:

-there is intense asymmetric lift

-similar asymmetric drag

-every deflected control surface means more (asymmetric) drag

-CG is shifted away from center line(no wing/fuel mass)

-aerodynamic center is shifted extensively away from center line and missing wing - airstream car rip apart remaining structure

-there's intensive roll/yaw momentum

-shutting down starboard engine is logical move to counter extensive roll/yaw momentum - never happened

-not seeing extent of damage by two pairs of healthy eyes is least said soap opera line

-landing on two tires at that speed is impossible without undercarriage/tire damage - never happened

Have you seen f111 dumping fuel and igniting it by afterburner?

Have you seen mig29 entangled in flames after midair collision fuel spray entering engine path?

If some here didn't please check first post images.

Personal discredit efforts - ricochet. :megalol:

Guys get real, read Roskam, learn theory of flight.. :)

Is this some sort of joke?

its theory of flight actually. the science behind joystick moves. thing that makes people fast travel large distances - safe. in essence: error of dcs flight/damage model.

2:00.

Just stop, you've actually deluded yourself into believing that you know something that you do not know. It's literally a stunning thing to see.

There's nothing wrong with questioning things, but you've just run off the cliff here :D

Personal discredit efforts - ricochet. :megalol:

 

Guys get real, read Roskam, learn theory of flight.. :)

maybe you should see this video at 7s next:

what do you see? fuel mist large enough to hide a wing? hmm?

maybe you should stop believing in false stories and turn logic on?

i know you can do better than personal discredit attempts. try reading f18abc manual part about dumping fuel.

(

The funny part is that they themselves deserved to be mocked. They're complaining about fuel leaks - but the eagle has several tanks. Which tank was leaking? Why would they assume it was all of them?

 

The partially destroyed wing, too - so there's an eagle that's heavily damaged and very hard to control, obviously nowhere near in shape to fight ... but they whine because it's still in the air.

 

Most eagles that were hit lost hydraulics in short order after the hit - yes, the aircraft didn't disintegrate, but it was destroyed anyway.

 

Maybe those viewers - and you - are just whiners?

No. They're complaining about a legitimate bug that is having an adverse effect on multiplayer. Some of the personal comments directed at you were uncalled for, however.

At the end of that round 1, even the game engine considered the plane destroyed. And yet it still has the integrity to do a sight seeing tour and turn at 90deg bank angles. Why are you defending the indefensible?:)

Rage: You're right about that bug. That's the core problem of this post. - Im trying to link anything that could give ed team credibility to give f15 this hard dm model. i found only this IAF story. tharos and other guys that claim that plane can fly without complete wing and brake all structural an stability limits are one that my replies are directed to.

Just to weigh in on the flammable fuel part. Jet A1 isn't highly flammable.

It is a flammable liquid more close to diesel like liquids.

It's always the vapor that burns in combination with oxygen. Not the liquid.

Jet a1 flash point = + 40C

Gasoline flash point = - 43C = highly flammable.

It's the heat by air compression in the engine that makes the mix condition to be easily ignitable. Outside the airframe in a spray it would still need to be heated to +40C to be ignitable. Which is relatively safe. Though spray is more prone to ignition due to the small liquid droplets having a maximum surface area to evaporate.

Small sparks, etc. aren't going to set it on fire in normal working temperatures. There isn't enough vapor to begin with.

The mist you're talking about is what makes the fuel burn :megalol:

The fuel in liquid state simply won't burn, that's why it's atomized.

Vapor burns, liquid does not.

It's not about believing in false theories. It's science.

GE, PW and RR, all those companies were all the whole time, right? Jet-A can't be atomized? LOL!

No. They're complaining about a legitimate bug that is having an adverse effect on multiplayer. Some of the personal comments directed at you were uncalled for, however.

I'm sure if I was there we'd have had some more laughs.

At the end of that round 1, even the game engine considered the plane destroyed. And yet it still has the integrity to do a sight seeing tour and turn at 90deg bank angles. Why are you defending the indefensible?:)

No Rage, I don't agree - from the comments it was just hating on the eagle. :) There was only once instance (IIRC) in the entire fight of this bug actually happening and in the end it amounted to nothing. I've experienced this from the other side (some random dogfight thing where a mirage thought it wise to shoot at a bandit 1500' in front of me. My sidewinder killed the target, the engine considered it dead, and then I got to experience the magic happen if you catch my drift :D ) ... but it happens once in a blue moon. Of course, I agree that OVERALL the handling of this state should be much better. IIRC it's done to prevent AI from shooting at a dead aircraft ... and I guess the same state is also used for the map display etc. And the eagle should have an overload based DM. Etc.

I never did defend any bugs (but I admit having fun with them - you know, SA-27ET prove beagle stronk :D ) and since you read the forum you know it.