FAQ for F-15 AFM Development

[GGTharos]

55 minutes ago, gavagai said:

The so-called PFM for F15 is nothing like flying the hydraulically controlled heatblur Tomcat.  Two different airframes, yes, but there is a huge skill gap between the two for BFM.  One of them requires finesse and the other is an arcade game.  It is a tragedy that any server allows the F15 to fly alongside the DCS modules.

 

It's not hard for you to prove the PFM is wrong or lacking, all you have to do is supply ED with data from your extensive experience flying IRL eagles.

 

It's not like there was some massive IRL effort to make the eagle as carefree as possible for handling, it's not like there's a pile of NASA documentation describing the handling in detail that was used for the eagle PFM and it wasn't validated by any real eagle pilots.

 

So this is your great opportunity, you've been complaining about it long enough.

Edited September 21, 2021 by GGTharos

[Cmptohocah]

On 8/22/2020 at 10:00 PM, dundun92 said:

The F-15 will reach max G VERY quickly, faster than anything else ive flown in DCS, that may be the cause. As GG said G onset plays a big role due to DCSs G modeling.

Unless someone can provide "load-time" curve for the Eagle that is different to other modules, this argument goes out the window.
It's clear that the max G in DCS for most of the fighters, except Eeagle, is pilot-limited to 9G and since DCS doesn't simulate any sort of failure when exceeding G tolerances this is quite a bug I would say. I mean 11G is 11G. Whether it's produced by the Flanker, Eagle, washing machine or a toaster.

Also where would one even get this information about the speed at which the Eagle can produce max G? Is there an "apha-time" diagram available somewhere?

[GGTharos]

39 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Unless someone can provide "load-time" curve for the Eagle that is different to other modules, this argument goes out the window.
It's clear that the max G in DCS for most of the fighters, except Eeagle, is pilot-limited to 9G and since DCS doesn't simulate any sort of failure when exceeding G tolerances this is quite a bug I would say. I mean 11G is 11G. Whether it's produced by the Flanker, Eagle, washing machine or a toaster.

Also where would one even get this information about the speed at which the Eagle can produce max G? Is there an "apha-time" diagram available somewhere?

 

It isn't a bug, g-tolerance of the airframe is something that wasn't there to begin with.  It was added well after the fact to the Su-27 and no one promised to add it everywhere.  And yes 11g is 11g, but an eagle isn't a flanker.  Bad news time:  Eagles have been over-gd to 12g IRL and have continued to fly in most cases ... and yes they were loaded with weapons and fuel.

Bad news time 2:  If some eagle is killing you because he can spike the g, your BFM needs serious review.   Not that the eagle shouldn't have g-tolerance limits, but it shouldn't be your go-to-complaint either.

 

There's no corner speed graph for the eagle, and certainly no document of the type you're asking for available publicly.

Edited September 21, 2021 by GGTharos

[FoxAlfa]

36 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

  Eagles have been over-gd to 12g IRL and have continued to fly in most cases ... and yes they were loaded with weapons and fuel.

There is pulling 12g's and landing with bent frame, and, we have as well many stories of Eagles crashing due to structural failures:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna22593275

 

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/60359
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/60375
etc

 

So lets pls put this myth of Structal indestructible Eagle, since it is starting to sound like communist propaganda...

 

and then there is doing a 12g pull and then there is doing ~16g transitions continually 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by FoxAlfa

[Cmptohocah]

14 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

It isn't a bug, g-tolerance of the airframe is something that wasn't there to begin with.  It was added well after the fact to the Su-27 and no one promised to add it everywhere.  And yes 11g is 11g, but an eagle isn't a flanker.  Bad news time:  Eagles have been over-gd to 12g IRL and have continued to fly in most cases ... and yes they were loaded with weapons and fuel.

Bad news time 2:  If some eagle is killing you because he can spike the g, your BFM needs serious review.   Not that the eagle shouldn't have g-tolerance limits, but it shouldn't be your go-to-complaint either.

 

There's no corner speed graph for the eagle, and certainly no document of the type you're asking for available publicly.

 

Just to separate things a bit.
G tolerance of the air frame is something I wish not to discuss at the moment, I just mentioned in a context that current max G is pilot related and topped off at 9G, in essence that IS the G-limit. I am pretty sure that all those mentioned fighters F-18, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 etc. have structural limit higher than 9G, but as I said they are limited by the pilot.

Please don't put my BFM in the mix, as this is not the topic of discussion. The topic is that you are able to pull well above 9G in the Eagle without blacking out. The general answer was that it's possible 'cause of the Eagle's rate of "load", but since there is no documentation to support this, what are we talking about then?

 

There's no E-M diagram for the Eagle available? Doesn't even matter, 'cause as I mentioned earlier we are mostly pilot-limited at 9G.

Argument that the pilot can stay conscious in the Eagle at 11Gs holds absolutely no water, unless someone can provide documentation that the Eagle is able to produce loads at much higher rate than other already mentioned fighters.

 

[Cmptohocah]

8 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

So lets pls put this myth of Structal indestructible Eagle, since it is starting to sound like communist propaganda,..

 

and then there is doing a 12g pull and then there is doing ~16g transitions continual

 

 

From what I can tell from the animated GIF, highest G that F-15 pulled was in excess of 13G, not to mention that 12Gs were exceeded 3 times.

[GGTharos]

10 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

There is pulling 12g's and landing with bent frame, and, we have as well many stories of Eagles crashing due to structural failures:

 

Again, bad news time:  Separating tail sections in high speed dives have happened and will probably happen again.  There was no g involved.  Guess which other DCS planes do not model this failure mode?  That's right, pretty much none of them.

 

More bad news time:  There is one 12g over-g, yep, that famous one, that the aircraft did not walk away from.  It did land, but it never flew again.  On the other hand, we have 11 and 12g over-g in training and combat that put the aircraft back in the air.

 

Even more bad news:  Manufacturing defects, ie. the bad longerons, are just that.  Nothing fell apart because of them UNTIL that one aircraft, and they were replaced elsewhere.

 

10 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

and then there is doing a 12g pull and then there is doing ~16g transitions continually

 

I don't see any 16g transitions but ok.  It's also known that the eagle shouldn't be able to reach that g (12.5 is the most recorded).

[GGTharos]

14 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

G tolerance of the air frame is something I wish not to discuss at the moment, I just mentioned in a context that current max G is pilot related and topped off at 9G, in essence that IS the G-limit. I am pretty sure that all those mentioned fighters F-18, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 etc. have structural limit higher than 9G, but as I said they are limited by the pilot.

 

Some can get higher than 9g, some not so well (eg F-18).

 

14 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

The topic is that you are able to pull well above 9G in the Eagle without blacking out. The general answer was that it's possible 'cause of the Eagle's rate of "load", but since there is no documentation to support this, what are we talking about then?

 

We're talking about the STOHL curve and the brain oxygen reserve of ~5 sec (more g = less time).

 

14 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

There's no E-M diagram for the Eagle available? Doesn't even matter, 'cause as I mentioned earlier we are mostly pilot-limited at 9G.

 

There's one for sustained turns.

 

14 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Argument that the pilot can stay conscious in the Eagle at 11Gs holds absolutely no water, unless someone can provide documentation that the Eagle is able to produce loads at much higher rate than other already mentioned fighters.

 

It holds loads of water, there is training and combat over-g incidents.  The pilot who bent the air-frame had it at 12.5g for ~5 sec, but he was also bent over the stick, different from the combat experience which was just a spike.

[FoxAlfa]

34 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Manufacturing defects, ie. the bad longerons, are just that.  Nothing fell apart because of them UNTIL that one aircraft, and they were replaced elsewhere

 

Yes, I agree, let ignore that 100+ F-15 lost in various training mishaps and structural failures and those 163 with flawed support beams because they are not brand new out of the factory jets.... let not kid ourselves.... pulling 12 g in F-15 is a serious thing and has caused deaths and there is number of documented fails... so it's not something you do just carelessly for fun...

 

I like HB solution for F-14... each time you spawn there is random g fali point... sometimes it is 11g sometimes 21 g... so pull G at your own peril... so it is not like this can't be solved easy by a single random number generator and give quite realistic results. 

 

34 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

I don't see any 16g transitions but ok

first transition is 12.4g to -4.5g to 13.7g... so yes more then 16g

Edited September 21, 2021 by FoxAlfa

[Cmptohocah]

24 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

We're talking about the STOHL curve and the brain oxygen reserve of ~5 sec (more g = less time).

Doesn't matter. Eagle producing 11+G or {insert aircraft here}, there should be no difference in when the pilot goes out.
 

24 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

 

There's one for sustained turns.

 

 

It holds loads of water, there is training and combat over-g incidents.  The pilot who bent the air-frame had it at 12.5g for ~5 sec, but he was also bent over the stick, different from the combat experience which was just a spike.

I think you would be a great politician @GGTharos: "I say apple is green and round and can't be flat", and you reply: "Screwdriver is metal with a plastic grip and its tip is flat."

Anyway that's all great, but you failed to explain why would something like this be possible in the Eagle and not in any other modern fighter we have in DCS.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[nighthawk2174]

5 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Doesn't matter. Eagle producing 11+G or {insert aircraft here}, there should be no difference in when the pilot goes out.
 

Not much of one yes, different G-suits between the different aircraft would have an impact on this though.  The more modern G suits seen being deployed in the mid 2000's for the US are far superior to the ones that you'd see back in the late 70's.

5 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

I think you would be a great politician @GGTharos: "I say apple is green and round and can't be flat", and you reply: "Screwdriver is metal with a plastic grip and its tip is flat."

I'm sorry but its as simple as he's stated it, there have been more than a few over g instances with the eagle where the airframe was just fine.  There was one where the from was bent with an excessively long 13g overload.  And as far as i'm aware GG is right about most of the structural failures either being recent issues (and in it being fixed) on extremely old frames (as in mid 2010's recent) or structural failure where overload was not the issue.  I've gone and read through the entire list of accidents and by far CFIT followed by an issue with the jet (often maintenance related) while taking off or landing then mid air collision are the most common.  These three types of accident account for at least 95+% of the accidents listed.  There is only one accident where structural failure was blamed. 

5 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

 

Anyway that's all great, but you failed to explain why would something like this be possible in the Eagle and not in any other modern fighter we have in DCS.

 

Aerospace structural design often has the requirement that a generous safety margin is in place, this is often ~50+% over the "design load" before you start getting permanent deformation.   This is only a general rule though, and as such some will be on the higher end of this (F15/F14) or on the lower end (SU27).  Plus it's hard to over-G the 9G flcs jets such as the F16/mirage (f18 technically but g limit is further reduced for air frame life).

[dundun92]

30 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Doesn't matter. Eagle producing 11+G or {insert aircraft here}, there should be no difference in when the pilot goes out.

I dont think you realize how the DCS over G blackout works. Once you get above a certain G (I dont know what it is exactly, probably around 8-9 Gs) you pretty much have a fixed time until blackout. Because of the F-15's rapid G onset due to how its "FCS" works, it spends very little time transitioning to that high G, and all that fixed time is spent at the high G. This contrasts to most other jets whose FCS limits rapid G onset as you hit around 9 Gs. So all your fixed time is spent "fighting" the FCS so to speak and hovering around 9 (maybe 10) Gs.

Edited September 21, 2021 by dundun92

[GGTharos]

40 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Anyway that's all great, but you failed to explain why would something like this be possible in the Eagle and not in any other modern fighter we have in DCS.

 

You're calling me a politician, but what does IRL eagle experience have to do with 'other modern jets in DCS'?   How about you frame your question like 'Why aren't other DCS jets modeling a better g-tolerance?' ... anyway dundun92 has explained it.  There are a lot of things that DCS doesn't take into account or doesn't model, and those show up in complex situations which aren't going to apply equally to all jets.

[Cmptohocah]

23 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Not much of one yes, different G-suits between the different aircraft would have an impact on this though.  The more modern G suits seen being deployed in the mid 2000's for the US are far superior to the ones that you'd see back in the late 70's.

I'm sorry but its as simple as he's stated it, there have been more than a few over g instances with the eagle where the airframe was just fine.  There was one where the from was bent with an excessively long 13g overload.  And as far as i'm aware GG is right about most of the structural failures either being recent issues (and in it being fixed) on extremely old frames (as in mid 2010's recent) or structural failure where overload was not the issue.  I've gone and read through the entire list of accidents and by far CFIT followed by an issue with the jet (often maintenance related) while taking off or landing then mid air collision are the most common.  These three types of accident account for at least 95+% of the accidents listed.  There is only one accident where structural failure was blamed. 

Aerospace structural design often has the requirement that a generous safety margin is in place, this is often ~50+% over the "design load" before you start getting permanent deformation.   This is only a general rule though, and as such some will be on the higher end of this (F15/F14) or on the lower end (SU27).  Plus it's hard to over-G the 9G flcs jets such as the F16/mirage (f18 technically but g limit is further reduced for air frame life).

I was talking with respect to DCS: all pilots have the same suits and same G tolerances. I am trying not to get into the structural limits debate as we don't really have any valid data to compare, so I focused it solely on the pilot limit.
 

23 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

I dont think you realize how the DCS over G blackout works. Once you get above a certain G (I dont know what it is exactly, probably around 8-9 Gs) you pretty much have a fixed time until blackout. Because of the F-15's rapid G onset due to how its "FCS" works, it spends very little time transitioning to that high G, and all that fixed time is spent at the high G. This contrasts to most other jets whose FCS limits rapid G onset as you hit around 9 Gs. So all your fixed time is spent "fighting" the FCS so to speak and hovering around 9 (maybe 10) Gs.

 

If I understood correctly, and please feel free to correct me, the Eagle pilot does not black out at 12G 'cause the Eagle's rate of load is much higher than any other fighter's. Again, as I said couple posts ago: where's the proof that such a thing exists in the Eagle? That is, why is the Eagle special in this regard?

If you look at most modern fighters, all their E-M diagrams are limited by a line that is somewhere around 9G. There is no "time spent" in above region, they are just limited to that specific load and most of the time it's pilot-limited.

To wrap it up, there is a bug/exploit and for following reasons:
1. Eagle in DCS should not have any advantage in pulling Gs quicker than any other contemporary fighter, since there is no proof that it should - feel free to convince me otherwise, but fact only please

2. There is a clear bug in G tolerance for the pilot in DCS, since there is a finite amount of time above 9G that the pilot can spend without blacking out regardless of the G load.

 

These two things clearly are wrong

11 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

You're calling me a politician, but what does IRL eagle experience have to do with 'other modern jets in DCS'?   How about you frame your question like 'Why aren't other DCS jets modeling a better g-tolerance?' ... anyway dundun92 has explained it.  There are a lot of things that DCS doesn't take into account or doesn't model, and those show up in complex situations which aren't going to apply equally to all jets.

Because real life E-M diagrams show a different story , or should I say: "other jets seem to follow the laws of physics and real world performance data."

Edited September 21, 2021 by Cmptohocah
Added more info,

[GGTharos]

7 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

If I understood correctly, and please feel free to correct me, the Eagle pilot does not black out at 12G 'cause the Eagle's rate of load is much higher than any other fighter's. Again, as I said couple posts ago: where's the proof that such a thing exists in the Eagle? That is, why is the Eagle special in this regard?

 

Yep, the eagle is known to have on of the fastest g-onset times IRL.  Maybe it's because there's no FBW to get in the way?  Compared to jets with a similar control scheme, maybe it has more hydraulic power?  Who knows.  There's no g-onset graph unfortunately (well, not one that is available to us.  I used to know the book to look for but it's not available to the public)

 

7 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

If you look at most modern fighters, all their E-M diagrams are limited by a line that is somewhere around 9G. There is no "time spent" in above region, they are just limited to that specific load and most of the time it's pilot-limited.

 

None of this matters.  The E-M diagrams are useless for this, you want to look at over-f studies.

 

7 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

To wrap it up, there is a bug/exploit and for following reasons:
1. Eagle in DCS should not have any advantage in pulling Gs quicker than any other contemporary fighter, since there is no proof that it should - feel free to convince me otherwise, but fact only please

2. There is a clear bug in G tolerance for the pilot in DCS, since there is a finite amount of time above 9G that the pilot can spend without blacking out regardless of the G load.

 

These two things clearly are wrong

 

1. Why not?  Because you said so?  Maybe the g-tolerance model for the pilot needs to account for a couple more things, but the bad news story is that IRL slow onset eats away your available time at high g as well.  The USAF at least 'overcame' certain g-tolerance problems by weeding out pilots who can't take the g.  You might be surprised as to how recent this is.

2. You would have to show that ED implemented the STOHL curve incorrectly.

 

It's possible that something more complicated than the STOHL curve would have to be implemented, but I don't know of any resources that indicate a better/different model for g onset personally.   What is out there is either behind paywall or kept by airforces to themselves.

Edited September 21, 2021 by GGTharos

[Cmptohocah]

7 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

None of this matters.  The E-M diagrams are useless for this, you want to look at over-f studies.

E-M diagrams are the fighters limits - they are everything. I know for a fact that Su-27SK's manual has in it an absolute G limit of 8. This is regardless on the flight configuration, speed, altitude, weapons etc. This is a do-not-exceed G limit. So how much G should the Flanker sustain in DCS before something bad happens? 8.1G, 20G, 200G? You get the point.
 

7 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

 

1. Why not?  Because you said so?  Maybe the g-tolerance model for the pilot needs to account for a couple more things, but the bad news story is that IRL slow onset eats away your available time at high g as well.  The USAF at least 'overcame' certain g-tolerance problems by weeding out pilots who can't take the g.  You might be surprised as to how recent this is.

You are personally attacking me now and yet no facts were presented. I say no, because physics and common sense say no. What's your argument or reasoning? Because maybe Eagle has a super hydraulic system? Ok, cool I have the same argument: I think that the Flanker should have double the load rate that of the Eagle 'cause I think its hydraulic system is superior to that of the Eagle. Can I prove it? Most certainly not, just like you can't prove the same for the Eagle.
 

7 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

2. You would have to show that ED implemented the STOHL curve incorrectly.

 

It's possible that something more complicated than the STOHL curve would have to be implemented, but I don't know of any resources that indicate a better/different model for g onset personally.   What is out there is either behind paywall or kept by airforces to themselves.

 

Can't put much valuable info here as I don't have any relevant info on the topic.

[Cmptohocah]

From what I found in this article, I will do some more research latter, the higher the onset of G the less time pilot even has to recognize loss of blood pressure to his/her head:
 

Quote

The symptoms that result from high G exposure are
dependent on the rate of onset of the acceleration.
When the onset is gradual (about 0.1 G per
sec.), visual symptoms precede GLOC. If the
onset is rapid (1 G per second or more), GLOC
can occur without visual warning.

 

https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2759.pdf

Page #4

So our Eagle driver should not only be napping at 11+G, but he should not even have cues that he's about to pass out.

[dundun92]

35 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

That is, why is the Eagle special in this regard?

because there is no actual FBW to limit it to 9 Gs, but rather a hydromechanical FCS that allows it to 12.5 Gs. The F-15 FCS is well documented

13 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

E-M diagrams are the fighters limits - they are everything. I know for a fact that Su-27SK's manual has in it an absolute G limit of 8. This is regardless on the flight configuration, speed, altitude, weapons etc. This is a do-not-exceed G limit. So how much G should the Flanker sustain in DCS before something bad happens? 8.1G, 20G, 200G? You get the point.

No, EM diagrams are not the limit. It simply represents specific lines of excess power and the turns rates generated at specific speed/Ps combinations. You can choose to stick a 9G max on what you calculate your EMs for, but it has no bearing on the actual limit. It would be like saying the F-14 can only pull 6.5 Gs because the EM diagrams stop there

Edited September 21, 2021 by dundun92

[dundun92]

14 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Ok, cool I have the same argument: I think that the Flanker should have double the load rate that of the Eagle 'cause I think its hydraulic system is superior to that of the Eagle. Can I prove it? Most certainly not, just like you can't prove the same for the Eagle.

Completely false analogy, as we have documentation on how the FCSs work on both jets, and quite simply, the F-15s allows you to hit 12.5 Gs. The Su-27s does not.

[Cmptohocah]

Another article talking about the same thing:
 

Quote

The most important factors in determining the effects the sustained acceleration will
have on the human body is the rate of onset and the peak sustained G-
force. The rate of onset, or how fast the body accelerates dictates the ability
to remain conscious, with a faster rate of onset leading to a lower G-force
threshold. An average, untrained individual will likely begin to be affected
by G-forces around +3Gz to +4Gz, while a trained individual using assist-
ing equipment may be able to withstand up to +8Gz or +9Gz provided a
reasonable rate of onset. Should the rate of onset be high however, the limit
is significantly decreased.

https://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1183272/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Page #18

[GGTharos]

It's not saying anything different from what was stated before.  Digging this stuff up is a good (great actually) start, devil's always in the details here.

 

So yeah, your statement about napping pilots is not correct, proven wrong by IRL over-gs.  That's not to say that some of those have not resulted in g-loc, in fact they have, but at a minority (and fun fact, plenty of g-loc happening at lower g too).   This can occur for a good variety of reasons that DCS does not and probably will not model (pilot was a bit dehydrated or didn't do AGSM correctly etc).

[GGTharos]

34 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

E-M diagrams are the fighters limits - they are everything. I know for a fact that Su-27SK's manual has in it an absolute G limit of 8. This is regardless on the flight configuration, speed, altitude, weapons etc. This is a do-not-exceed G limit. So how much G should the Flanker sustain in DCS before something bad happens? 8.1G, 20G, 200G? You get the point.

 

Well it gets exceeded IRL in aircraft that aren't limited to a specific g by their FCS.  The flanker can pull 11g without breaking, but you need to have it suitably light.   It's simply built different.

 

34 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

You are personally attacking me now and yet no facts were presented. I say no, because physics and common sense say no.

 

Neither of those things says no.  You came here to have an eagle beef, not because of physics or common sense - at least that's what it looks like to me

 

34 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

What's your argument or reasoning? Because maybe Eagle has a super hydraulic system? Ok, cool I have the same argument: I think that the Flanker should have double the load rate that of the Eagle 'cause I think its hydraulic system is superior to that of the Eagle. Can I prove it? Most certainly not, just like you can't prove the same for the Eagle.

 

That's fine, can you prove that an eagle doesn't have that g-onset or can't pull more than 9g?   Don't bother, these are questions that were asked and dealt with well before your time here.   ED didn't build those FMs in some kind of vacuum, same with the pilot g-tolerance model; proof has already been provided regarding g-loading for whichever aircraft it could be found for, and the eagle in particular had a few interesting examples.

But TBH, I don't think there are a lot of people who want to keep rehashing the same.

 

34 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Can't put much valuable info here as I don't have any relevant info on the topic.

 

It's a difficult topic because the answer we seek aren't available publicly.  Basic descriptions and rules and ideas yes, but no information on how to model such a thing because the research isn't concerned with modeling g-tolerance in a simulator, but rather understanding the factors in order to help pilots tolerate more or at least to understand the limits and why they're there.

Edited September 21, 2021 by GGTharos

[Cmptohocah]

2 hours ago, dundun92 said:

Completely false analogy, as we have documentation on how the FCSs work on both jets, and quite simply, the F-15s allows you to hit 12.5 Gs. The Su-27s does not.

Actually the Flanker's manual shows a load-TAS diagram and at 1000m altitude with 2xR-27 & 2xR-73 and 50% fuel the line reaches 10G and judging by the line shape it might as well go over 11G, but the same diagram clearly has a 8G limit also.

Anyway the point here is not about the Flanker or the Eagle per se. It could be any aircraft and it just so happens that I do have the manuals and graphs for the Flanker/Fulcrum. I actually couldn't care less the specifics of the particular fighter-jet type, but I do care great deal about consistency and facts.

So far no one has came up with a single fact about the Eagles excessive G tolerance (again not talking about the structure but the pilot) except hypothesizing that it's right the way it is.

 

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

....

That's fine, can you prove that an eagle doesn't have that g-onset or can't pull more than 9g?   Don't bother, these are questions that were asked and dealt with well before your time here.   ED didn't build those FMs in some kind of vacuum, same with the pilot g-tolerance model; proof has already been provided regarding g-loading for whichever aircraft it could be found for, and the eagle in particular had a few interesting examples.

But TBH, I don't think there are a lot of people who want to keep rehashing the same.

...

 

I actually never questioned that the Eagle can pull more than 9G.

My question was about the reason why it would pull significantly more G in a shorter amount of time than any other jet (so load rate as opposed to total load), which would allow it to exploit badly modeled GLOC as more G equals greater turn rate.

Anyway if the charts and articles are not enough to show you guys that what @FoxAlfa showed in his GIF, seriously defies physics and human physiology I guess there's no point to discuss it any further.

[Cmptohocah]

This guy is pulling 11G for quite some seconds and at a quite a rapid rate I would say, so I guess my pilot tolerance goes out the window. Although he does GLOC at the 3rd spike at 12G.
 

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[dundun92]

33 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Anyway if the charts and articles are not enough to show you guys that what @FoxAlfa showed in his GIF, seriously defies physics and human physiology I guess there's no point to discuss it any further.

The GIF shows that high Gs break the netcode? Not sure how that is relevant to a FM discussion