These are operational limitations, not limits.
They will be indicated in any Soviet instruction. Sometimes extreme (destructive) overloads are indicated, a safety factor must be applied to them (usually 1.5), this will be an overload in which the aircraft will fall apart in the air.
The game applies a 1.05 multiplier (for speed) to “operational limitations” to get the “limits”.
Of course there are other examples from other nations as well … Such as F-16 pulling way beyond its 9G limit …
Ironically it was added with the G-limiter and had it for a while, but then they removed it.
it actually wasnt, iirc that was an AOA limit not a G limit
It’s not hard limited to 9G, its a transient limit that may be exceeded, due to the way that the control laws are modeled. (and more restrictive modes do exist to account for stores configurations, but that’s not really modeled elsewhere).
Further the issue with Gaijin’s implementation was that it didn’t take into account differential surface deflection properly and the feedback in the system, since that also depends on state history and a number of other factors (Angle of Attack, Mach number, static air pressure, etc.), sometimes even recursively or otherwise mixed into multiple channels.
As such it’s a complex system especially if trying to somehow map the various outputs onto a bespoke mouse control system. So it’s not surprising that there are edge cases where things don’t line up.
I do think that it’s fair to a degree that said implementation is treated permissively until it can be properly implemented, though as otherwise there are potential balancing issues created, we really don’t need more F-104 / A-10A’s if we can avoid it.
It just so happens that the F-16 is really the test case for a digital Fly by wire system that people picked up on, Similar issues exist with the Wing Sweep program for the F-14 as well.
Do you mean it may be momentarily exceeded?
Because from pilot accounts I’ve heard, it was “hard limited” to 9G
You could however momentarily exceed it if you were fast and pulling fast, as essentially the system couldn’t keep up with imposing the limits quickly enough …
1 Like
Yes, the system can’t just pull the correct response forces out it’s ass, it’s not magic.
Especially when it has the limiters in the other axis’ to consider simultaneously that mix in the requisite commands to a limited number of physical outputs which is where boundary issues can occur and why even with a digital control system (“Deep”) stalls can still occur.
It will certainly decay to 9G (or lower) depending on the set up, but it’s not instant especially at higher speeds or with complex states.
Well, that’s kinda the point
Because in the game (at least last time I tested it) it sustains >9G load factors (The duration of course depends on the load factor and weight etc)
No they are LRASM or JASSM ER counterparts
Yes, because in game that limit as with all other aircraft is multiplied by 1.5x, it wouldn’t be fair to single out those airframes simply because things can’t be modeled properly.
The 1.5x limit is to account for safety margins that designs and manuals include
But the 9G limiter is an electronic limiter and wouldn’t involve any “margins”
The ability to momentarily go above 9G (due to the control system shortcomings) is:
1- Limited in time
2- Limited in amount (IIRC from pilot accounts you could get 1 or 2 extra Gs for a short period of time)
In the game it goes way way beyond that …
And they could easily model that BTW. I.e. allow it to pull 1 or 2 extra Gs for a limited amount of time if the pilot applies full pitch input at high speeds.
(In fact IIRC it was already modeled … You could get a bit more than 9G and without time limit actually, especially with SB controls …)
I think they removed it to make it more conventional and similar to other planes for the players …
Because while it was modeled there was a “Wall” at ~840 km/h or so where below it you could reach 9G, but performance fell off incredibly quickly above it so there was effectively a hard cap on the energy that you could use in a dogfight since going in faster than than the corner meant the turn radius you had was massive and there was no way to dump energy fast enough to be competitive in a one or two circle fight due to the disparity in performance to contemporary airframes like the Mig-29 and others that were not impacted.
Which basically meant that the F-16 could be dealt with by rote, either by turning hard if it was going too fast, or climbing if it was slow to gain separation and stalling it out with the energy difference and there was nothing it could do to punish the opponent due to the AIM-9L’s not being able to deal with flares and limited access to SARHs (which have their own host of issues).
What did he say?
Defaulting to 3 gen Thermal for Russians things is interesting
3 Likes
meant aim9e, mb
1 Like
Generation =/= resolution
russian tech wizardry
only seems to work on paper though…
9 Likes
Okay but what source is Gaijin using to know if it’s 2/3rd generation ir resolution on the mt
How would I know?
The one question I have been asking since I stumbled on this topic.