Here’s another source from Saab themselves stating 9G load limit (and as a universal standard Gaijin will apply the 1.5x load limit since not only is that what most other countries do… but as seen from the report earlier… the Swedish also applied this to the Gripen).
or an article on the South African model
Saab again
I’m just not seeing any claimed “12G” maximum overload as the normal load factor limit. The 1.5x margin clearly is applied to 9G, and pilots are given the option IRL to go practically right up to the load limits.
I think one issue is that “design load limit” is overloaded (hehe). What is allowed in a life or death situation is different from what an airframe should be able to handle regularly during a 30 year life.
WT considers life and death situations, not long term maintenance. In WT, when you exceed the structural limit, the wings fall off.
Clearly then 12g (the short term, emergency limit), not 9g, should be the basis for WT’s max structural load (upon which then 1.5 is multiplied).
You’re not understanding. 12G is at the absolute limit already to the point that overloads beyond this depending on weight and speed would damage the aircraft beyond repair.
It’s a game of fold the ruler to see how far until it breaks. 12G is on the edge already. (13.5G being the line not to cross).
There are multiple articles, interviews, documents, etc that all talk about a 9G soft limit and a 12G Hard limit. Based upon this comment from the devs:
The developer has commented
“mouse aim doesn’t use limits for internal SCAS or FBW. It allow using max strength of aircraft.
hard g-limits were included to the SAS damper mode.” - Report
The aircraft should be able to pull the Hard G-limit, at least when in SAS mode. Based upon current experience flying in SAS mode, with a HOTAS, in SB, I can only really hit 8-9G (based upon Cockpit HUD readout) . The soft limit. So surely its underperforming by 3G?
You and your source literally stated that the airframe is designed to survive 150% more than the 9g limit. As intended by design.
You aren’t making sense because that means the airframe structural limit is 13.5g, and the safety limit of that will then be 1.5 times greater.
Again, the FCS limits the aircraft to 9g. An artifical limit intended for pilot safety.
If the airframe is then intended to survive 150% more than a 9g artifical safety limit, that means the structural limit is 13.5g, so what is the destruction limit?
It can’t also be 13.5g
You can have something survive and be destroyed at the same value. It makes no sense.
My understanding of the system the devs use is perfectly fine, my problem is that you have yourself contradicted your own wording and sources.
That’s what I’m saying, the 9G limit is for service life and it’s meant to handle up to 1.5x that. That’s why it should rip at 13.5G in-game. This same logic is applied to all aircraft in the game even when their true safety margin is lower, for example the Viggen at 1.2x.
You’re the one confused here, 1.5 x 9 = 13.5. you don’t re-apply the 1.5x safety margin a second time.
Pilot limitations might be why the design limitation of 9G was implemented but the safety limit is only 1.5x that for the airframe.
You’ve done this in your own comment. No one else is confused here afaik. Devs lowered structural limit to 13.59G, this is accurate. The issue is that in spite of this change, it can somehow still pull 17Gs in-game. The issue will be fixed, relax.
No it’s not. The Devs changed the structural limit to 13.59g when the aircraft is empty. It should be 13.5g at a mass of 7,875 kg. In game the limit at 7,875kg is currently something like 11.5g.
I’ve posted a quote from an executive of Demel Dynamics stating that they had performed testing of the A-Darter missile on the South African Gripens up to 12g. I find it hard to believe they were willing to risk going to within 13% of the airframes limit, risking permanent damage or catastrophic failure, for the sake of weapon testing/certification.
