F-16 Over G damage as of 2.7

[Exorcet]

I had a wing tear itself off while maneuvering with twin fuel tanks. It seemed like before this patch, I could do anything I wanted no matter the load out and the plane would take it. Glad to see this added, however I had the configuration switch set to Cat III. Should this have prevented overstressing? Perhaps it's not 100% fool proof, but my wing came off during an unloaded roll, which I'd expect the FCS to be able to handle.

[Eagle7907]

From what I understand the Cat switch just dampens roll rates, you can still over G stores regardless of switch position.

[Exorcet]

In that case it might be fair then. I was surprised as I wasn't even at full roll rate.

[SpaceMonkey037]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

I had a wing tear itself off while maneuvering with twin fuel tanks. It seemed like before this patch, I could do anything I wanted no matter the load out and the plane would take it. Glad to see this added, however I had the configuration switch set to Cat III. Should this have prevented overstressing? Perhaps it's not 100% fool proof, but my wing came off during an unloaded roll, which I'd expect the FCS to be able to handle.

The stores configuration switch reduces the roll and AOA limit to increase the aicrafts departure recistance. It is not connected to G as said by eagle. You probably don't want to go above 6 g with full external tanks, once they are empty they can handle 9 g.

[Zergburger]

cat 3 lowers AoA limit, which will reduce G, but not a hard limiter.

[TAW_Blaze]

Is there any chance you tipped the jet on taxi to damage the wings? In the past typically you'd only lose wings if you did that first.

[Exorcet]

3 hours ago, 104th_Blaze said:

Is there any chance you tipped the jet on taxi to damage the wings? In the past typically you'd only lose wings if you did that first.

It wouldn't have been that as it was an air start since I was trying to do some missile testing.

 

After some more flying I noticed sparks coming from some of my missile launches so I guessed it could have something to do with missiles hitting my plane as they left the rail, but no reply from ED yet to confirm that my guess is correct:

 

 

[Mover]

7 hours ago, SpaceMonkey037 said:

The stores configuration switch reduces the roll and AOA limit to increase the aicrafts departure recistance. It is not connected to G as said by eagle. You probably don't want to go above 6 g with full external tanks, once they are empty they can handle 9 g.

 

If memory serves:

Bombs are 5.5Gs

Full tanks 6.5Gs

TGP 7.33Gs

Empty tanks 8.5Gs

 

[SpaceMonkey037]

1 hour ago, Mover said:

 

If memory serves:

Bombs are 5.5Gs

Full tanks 6.5Gs

TGP 7.33Gs

Empty tanks 8.5Gs

 

May I ask where you've gotten that info from?

[Mover]

Just now, SpaceMonkey037 said:

May I ask where you've gotten that info from?

 

Memory.

[Mover]

Just now, SpaceMonkey037 said:

Memory as in BMS manual? If no further explanation is given I will assume BMS.

 

I don't know what that is.

 

Used to have to write ops limits on the back of the CAPS every month.  

[SpaceMonkey037]

1 minute ago, Mover said:

 

I don't know what that is.

 

Used to have to write ops limits on the back of the CAPS every month.  

Cool, alright thanks. Your memory is valid.

[Bunny Clark]

1 hour ago, Mover said:

TGP 7.33Gs

That's really interesting, I had no idea the G limits on the TGP were so low (relative to the Viper's otherwise 9G rating clean), especially since you can't punch that off. I'm guessing that's more to prevent damage to the pod rather than the airframe?

 

 

16 minutes ago, SpaceMonkey037 said:

Memory as in BMS manual? If no further explanation is given I will assume BMS.

... Mover has flown Vipers into combat IRL.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Bunny Clark
formatting

[SpaceMonkey037]

2 minutes ago, Bunny Clark said:

... Mover has flown Vipers into combat IRL.

O.. I didn't realise this was THE Mover. Thought it was some guy imitating. Wops, of course wouldn't have doubted an answer from the real mover haha

[pchRage]

31 minutes ago, Bunny Clark said:

hat's really interesting, I had no idea the G limits on the TGP were so low (relative to the Viper's otherwise 9G rating clean), especially since you can't punch that off. I'm guessing that's more to prevent damage to the pod rather than the airframe?

 

"....Then I’ll over G the targeting pod with a smile on my face" 

 

https://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/dos_gringos/im_a_pilot-lyrics-1249184.html

 

[SpaceMonkey037]

@MoverDo you happen to also know the G limit of the MAU pylon, and also the base aircraft? MAU-12 I believe it's called. If the MAU-12 it self doesn't cause a G limit difference what is the pylon's weight? And what are the different G limits based on aircraft weight, would imagine the aircraft gets a higher G tolerance the lighter it is. Might be a touchy subject but greatly apricate answers, thanks. This is a picture of what I believe to be a MAU pylon:
 

[Mover]

3 minutes ago, SpaceMonkey037 said:

@MoverDo you happen to also know the G limit of the MAU pylon, and also the base aircraft? MAU-12 I believe it's called. If the MAU-12 it self doesn't cause a G limit difference what is the pylon's weight? And what are the different G limits based on aircraft weight, would imagine the aircraft gets a higher G tolerance the lighter it is. Might be a touchy subject but greatly apricate answers, thanks. This is a picture of what I believe to be a MAU pylon:
 

 

The G-limits I posted are the only ones I'm aware of. 

[SparxOne]

@Mover

Hey there boss, is there a way that the FLCS will g-limit the maneouvers of the aircraft when those weapons/pods are strapped on ? Say if aircraft has tanks on, will the FLCS automatically g-limit the aircraft to 6.5G's ?

Or is it a pilots responsability to not go over that limit ?

 

I'm asking because in a simulator we of coarse do not have the true feeling of G's and therefore very easy to go over any kind of G's without noticing it physically, so a pretty tedious thing to watch out for in a stressful situation

[Frederf]

FLCS laws are not changed by SMS inventory. Only the Cat I/III switch has an effect. Purpose of FLCS limits is strictly to prevent out of control condition. There is no consideration given to preventing damage. Even basic airplane 9g limit can be overcome according to FLCS laws.

 

Most AG stores are certified to 5.5g, some are more like Maverick and HARM.

[SCPanda]

I tried the F-16 in 2.7. No damage or wing tearing off from 9 G maneuvering with 2 wing tanks, 4 Aim-120s, and 2 Aim-9Xs. Same as before. 

 

I doubt wing will tear off in real life, because I don't think USAF will employ a fighter jet that can easily rip its wing off from 9 G maneuvering with 2 wing tanks, over g is very possible in real combat after all. I believe damage is only structural and on pylons maybe. 

[Machalot]

2 hours ago, SCPanda said:

I tried the F-16 in 2.7. No damage or wing tearing off from 9 G maneuvering with 2 wing tanks, 4 Aim-120s, and 2 Aim-9Xs. Same as before. 

 

I doubt wing will tear off in real life, because I don't think USAF will employ a fighter jet that can easily rip its wing off from 9 G maneuvering with 2 wing tanks, over g is very possible in real combat after all. I believe damage is only structural and on pylons maybe. 

The damage could be wing root fatigue, which shortens the service life; or cracking/yielding at stress points, which requires servicing to disassemble and possibly replace structural components.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Machalot

[SCPanda]

19 minutes ago, Machalot said:

The damage could be wing root fatigue, which shortens the service life; or cracking/yielding at stress points, which requires servicing to disassemble and possibly replace structural components.

 

Yeah that's also what I think. Wing tearing off sounds ridiculous, F-16 is not a WW2 plane after all. 

[SparxOne]

8 hours ago, Frederf said:

FLCS laws are not changed by SMS inventory. Only the Cat I/III switch has an effect. Purpose of FLCS limits is strictly to prevent out of control condition. There is no consideration given to preventing damage. Even basic airplane 9g limit can be overcome according to FLCS laws.

 

Most AG stores are certified to 5.5g, some are more like Maverick and HARM.

 

Thanks, makes sense indeed ! So from what you're saying, it would be pilots responsibility to not go over it after all. I wonder how milsim pilots do it in this simulator (Do they use the Cat switch ?), like i said, it's so easy to go above those limits in a flinch without noticing, flying 500Kt and slightly pulling on the stick and you quickly reach 6G and above.

 

8 hours ago, SCPanda said:

I tried the F-16 in 2.7. No damage or wing tearing off from 9 G maneuvering with 2 wing tanks, 4 Aim-120s, and 2 Aim-9Xs. Same as before. 

 

I doubt wing will tear off in real life, because I don't think USAF will employ a fighter jet that can easily rip its wing off from 9 G maneuvering with 2 wing tanks, over g is very possible in real combat after all. I believe damage is only structural and on pylons maybe. 

 

I can confirm after a test yesterday that pulling 10.3Gs with fuel tanks on did nothing, tried it a few times and never did i break anything (I was even surprised to be able and pull 10.3Gs)...

[Exorcet]

On 4/16/2021 at 12:43 AM, SCPanda said:

I tried the F-16 in 2.7. No damage or wing tearing off from 9 G maneuvering with 2 wing tanks, 4 Aim-120s, and 2 Aim-9Xs. Same as before. 

 

I doubt wing will tear off in real life, because I don't think USAF will employ a fighter jet that can easily rip its wing off from 9 G maneuvering with 2 wing tanks, over g is very possible in real combat after all. I believe damage is only structural and on pylons maybe. 

 

After finally getting replies in the other thread, it looks like there is no overstress in the F-16. The issue is that 2.7 introduced a bug that allows the plane to collide with its own missiles at launch.

 

 

[Krippz]

On 4/15/2021 at 11:19 AM, SpaceMonkey037 said:

May I ask where you've gotten that info from?

He flew the plane that's the subject of this report dude lol . On-topic though it would be great if the load limits that he mentions were added to the damage model. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Krippz