Greater Wing flex

[KTFBGB]

you guys made my day :D :D

 

 

calm down and enjoy the game...

 

 

btw: I am an aerospace engineer ... and as said before DCS is very plausible in terms of wing design and stiffness structres in different parts of the wing...in terms of weapon stations, wing root momentum etc...

 

 

as said before...just enjoy the game...

 

Now you've gone and done it. Be prepared for the flood lol.

[raelias]

Good point! Should be moved to bugs

[feefifofum]

I'm an aerospace engineer - test pilot - turned software engineer.

 

Before that I hunted and killed the last Tyrannosaurus Rex with one of those plastic swords you put olives on (sorry, further details are classified.) I also blew Chuck Yeager before his first supersonic flight and cloned my own child from his DNA, which I secretly harvested, then consumed that child's stem cells in order to increase my own already considerable piloting skills.

 

When I'm not flying F-36s for the Illuminati (sorry, further details are classified) I build wind tunnels for the secret government that CONTROLS the Illuminati and test the flexion of secret UFO metal by twisting it with my bare hands. By connecting an electrical lead directly to my impressive biceps using my own revision of a technique taught to me by Nikola Tesla during a time travel experiment (sorry, further details are classified) I am able to generate more accurate data by ten decimal places than any computer that has ever existed.

 

SO I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. The wing physics seem pretty okay to me.

Edited July 26, 2019 by feefifofum

[Katj]

I have to agree with OP that current behaviour doesn't look quite right. It's probably not the most pressing issue in the game right now, but I don't understand why you guys are giving OP a hard time just because he or she asked to get a problem fixed. I am sure ED will prioritize this request according to its importance.

 

They took the time to implement wing flex, now they know that it doesn't look right and someone noticed. It's all good really.

[mkiii]

Not to say that the op is wrong entirely, but back to basics - those original images do not show any major differences, especially considering that the comparison angles are not exactly the same. Only a degree or two difference in viewpoint or perspective is going to make the geometry look different, as will any extension of flaps, slats & ailerons. Then there is the flex to consider. Comparing the F-18 or any other fighter/strike aircraft wing that has to carry very substatial loads at least on the inner section (which is the strongets an most rigid part) to a composie or fibreglass glider wing is a bit of a stretch. I can certainly vouch for the fact that wing roots and inner wing sections on these military types are not particularly flexible. Often the root and inner wing section forms a rigid box that forms a bulkhead in the fuselage, and the inner wing has multile ribs. I'm fairly sure that the F18 uses that system.

 

For your delight:

[WARSZAWARC]

[Nooch]

but I don't understand why you guys are giving OP a hard time.

 

Maybe if you look at his first posts and see how angry and unfriendly he was you would understand...

 

Also being a civil engineer doesn't mean you know the subject here. Let's be honest. You know the resistance of materials in buildings and stuff but you have no idea of how a Hornet's wing is designed and how it interacts with g-force and the airflow. There is a reason why they hire aerospace engineer to build airplanes, not civil engineers...

[KTFBGB]

I'm an aerospace engineer - test pilot - turned software engineer.

 

Before that I hunted and killed the last Tyrannosaurus Rex with one of those plastic swords you put olives on (sorry, further details are classified.) I also blew Chuck Yeager before his first supersonic flight and cloned my own child from his DNA, which I secretly harvested, then consumed that child's stem cells in order to increase my own already considerable piloting skills.

 

When I'm not flying F-36s for the Illuminati (sorry, further details are classified) I build wind tunnels for the secret government that CONTROLS the Illuminati and test the flexion of secret UFO metal by twisting it with my bare hands. By connecting an electrical lead directly to my impressive biceps using my own revision of a technique taught to me by Nikola Tesla during a time travel experiment (sorry, further details are classified) I am able to generate more accurate data by ten decimal places than any computer that has ever existed.

 

SO I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. The wing physics seem pretty okay to me.

 

You sir, made my day. That was hilarious lol.

[_mu110_]

Unfortunate that this thread has just devolved into personal insults etc. We all agree that this is not a game breaking issue by any means, but that doesn't make it a sin to talk about it.

Having exactly zero first-hand knowledge of how this should work IRL and assuming that the OP is correct about the way that it is currently modeled, I don't see how it makes sense for half the wing closest to the root to be totally static and for only the other half to flex. Just my uneducated take on the issue :pilotfly:

[Deano87]

I'm an aerospace engineer - test pilot - turned software engineer.

 

Before that I hunted and killed the last Tyrannosaurus Rex with one of those plastic swords you put olives on (sorry, further details are classified.) I also blew Chuck Yeager before his first supersonic flight and cloned my own child from his DNA, which I secretly harvested, then consumed that child's stem cells in order to increase my own already considerable piloting skills.

 

When I'm not flying F-36s for the Illuminati (sorry, further details are classified) I build wind tunnels for the secret government that CONTROLS the Illuminati and test the flexion of secret UFO metal by twisting it with my bare hands. By connecting an electrical lead directly to my impressive biceps using my own revision of a technique taught to me by Nikola Tesla during a time travel experiment (sorry, further details are classified) I am able to generate more accurate data by ten decimal places than any computer that has ever existed.

 

SO I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. The wing physics seem pretty okay to me.

 

:megalol:

[Ziptie]

Unfortunate that this thread has just devolved into personal insults etc. :pilotfly:

 

 

Sadly pretty much the main use for internet and social media these days. And to think that men and women put the ultimate sacrifice and commitment forward to protect many of these individuals. That would be due to the hope that people across this world will figure out that we are not each others enemy, but an ally. And when they figure that out, the human race will be able to achieve some truly incredible feats.

 

Until then, back to pictures of food and selfies, along with insulting complete strangers for some twisted sense of self satisfaction - which is an oxymoron all of it's own.

 

:pilotfly:

[feefifofum]

Are you qualified to make that statement, sir or madam? Please list your engineering degrees.

[fl0w]

I'm going to side with the 3rd party developer here who actually knows what he is doing.

 

Wing flex is a result of lift forces that occur on the wing. Every aircraft has an amount of wing flex but it is barely noticeable. More lift occurs around the wingtip section than the rather general area, that when pulling G forces it causes a significant bend. While you may argue that it is visually incorrect, the "bend" or flex of the wings is dependent on the wing's internal structure, as well as the composition of materials used.

 

The 1st example is what we are observing in DCS with the edge of the wing structure bending (I-beam in this case) becoming more extreme the closer it is. The 2nd is what you're trying to observe.

 

 

[Shahdoh]

Also, do not forget, the wing is getting thinner the further out from the wing root, not to mention other unknown structural changes. The amount of flex will not be the same across the whole wing.

[bbrz]

Also, do not forget, the wing is getting thinner the further out from the wing root...

Considerable; from 5% to 3.5%, that's a 30% reduction!

[fl0w]

Which means the more reduction, the easier the bending may occur from forces. Not all bending of wings on aircraft are linear, not even the Tomcat which has more extremity around the edge as well.

[Katj]

I'm going to side with the 3rd party developer here who actually knows what he is doing.

 

 

 

Wing flex is a result of lift forces that occur on the wing. Every aircraft has an amount of wing flex but it is barely noticeable. More lift occurs around the wingtip section than the rather general area, that when pulling G forces it causes a significant bend. While you may argue that it is visually incorrect, the "bend" or flex of the wings is dependent on the wing's internal structure, as well as the composition of materials used.

 

 

 

The 1st example is what we are observing in DCS with the edge of the wing structure bending (I-beam in this case) becoming more extreme the closer it is. The 2nd is what you're trying to observe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very nice animations!

 

I do, however, think that OP is trying to observe the first case.

 

OP claims that there is zero displacement of the loaded wing until halfway out from the tip. If that claim is true, and I haven't tested it myself so I cannot vouch for it, then there's a problem or "problem", if you will.

 

Because physics, there's no way for a wing to not bend until halfway to the tip. Thus, if you are trying to prove that OP is wrong, you should prove that the wing DOES bend in the inner half, albeit very little.

 

Now, because no part of a real aircraft is a rigid body, there should of course be all sorts of bending going on. E.g. the nose should droop when pulling Gs. I don't think that's modelled, and that's fine with me. I am happy that the wings bend at all.

[Lordzarj]

The Hornet's wing is also not a one-piece structure. There is a hinge 2/3rds of the way down which no doubt has reinforcing either side, that surely affects how it flexes?

 

In any case if I see the wing tips flexing a bit when I look sideways I'm happy.

[mkiii]

Exactly. Watch the video I provided earlier - it has a section showing the composition of the F-18 wing. It is not a simple straight girder profile for a spar, it is a series of tapering box sections enclosed by the skin, that are far more rigid on the inner section. Glider wing it is not.

[bbrz]

It is not a simple straight girder profile for a spar, it is a series of tapering box sections enclosed by the skin, that are far more rigid on the inner section. Glider wing it is not.

You are completely missing the point. A modern glider is usually also a stressed skin, (multi) spar design and the same principles apply, the same load application etc.

Again, if you look at the glider wing video you will notice the the bending occurs the most at the outer part, and there's (almost) no bending at the root.

It's the same on the F/A-18, the 787 'plastic' wing or a 'classic' B-52 wing.

[mkiii]

You are completely missing the point. A modern glider is usually also a stressed skin, (multi) spar design and the same principles apply, the same load application etc.

Again, if you look at the glider wing video you will notice the the bending occurs the most at the outer part, and there's (almost) no bending at the root.

It's the same on the F/A-18, the 787 'plastic' wing or a 'classic' B-52 wing.

I don't think I am completely missing the point. A modern glider and other very slender wings that you mention are not designed to carry 2000+lb bombs and counter significant G loads. It really is not the same design rationale. Have you ever jumped up and down on a modern glider wing - why not? It would crumple. Have I done so on a (maybe not quite so modern) naval strike fighter wing? Yes. Did it Break - No. Why not? It was designed to be as rigid as possible to counter the stresses involved in dropping bombs at high speed & possible high G, not cruising around sedately at altitude.

Whatever. the case, I don't think the structure of an F-18 wing inner section looks remotely flexible - it is after all part of the fuselage, not something pinned on like your glider example, and until someone who actually flies the things, or designed them says otherwise, I'm inclined to think what we have looks reasonable, if not exactly correct.

[bbrz]

1. A modern glider wing is not designed to counter significant G loads. It really is not the same design rationale. Have you ever jumped up and down on a modern glider wing - why not? It would crumple. Have I done so on a naval strike fighter wing? Yes. Did it Break - No. Why not? It was designed to be as rigid as possible to counter the stresses involved in dropping bombs at high speed & possible high G, not cruising around sedately at altitude.

 

2. I don't think the structure of an F-18 wing inner section looks remotely flexible...I'm inclined to think what we have looks reasonable, if not exactly correct.

1. Are you sure? E.g. the Swift S-1 wing is designed to take much more stress than any of your fighters, the ultimate load limit is +15G and -11.2G. (you could jump up and down on the wing all day long)

 

2. That's what I'm saying/writing the whole time!

Edited July 31, 2019 by bbrz

[Weta43]

I wondered how long it would take you two to realises you were furiously agreeing :)

[bbrz]

I wondered how long it would take you two to realises you were furiously agreeing :)

:lol:But that's apparently accidentally, since we have differing knowledge about wing design. ;)

Edited August 1, 2019 by bbrz