The SPILS system is an integrated part of the Tornado flight control system. It’s purpose in life is to ensure the Pilot cannot lose control of the aircraft during certain flight regimes. A term often heard when describing fly by wire systems is ‘Carefree Handling’. This generally means that a Pilot can ‘drive’ the aircraft as they “wish but this computer will stop any loss of control due to a request that the airframe cannot perform safely”.
In the Tornado’s case a computer sits between the aircraft controls and the physical controlling surfaces such as the tailerons, rudder and spoilers. The computer receives signals from the pilot through the controls and decides whether or not to pass these to the control surfaces as requested by the Pilot. The computer also receives a vast amount of information from sensors mounted within the airframe and compares these against what the Pilot is asking for. It then instructs the control surfaces to deliver the best possible performance available for the manoeuvre requested without causing a departure. A departure is generally any loss of controlled flight.
These systems are not foolproof, they will not for example stop the pilot flying the aircraft into the ground.
And it does that through AOA limitation. You should not be able to stall Tornado with SPILS enabled, but you absolutely can overstress the airframe. G limits are not enforced by CSAS or SPILS.
the spils are connected directly to the control surfaces when active will ensure safe operation. It’s not safe to lose your wings! soon the flight control system will prevent this. not allowing the control surfaces to perform variations that could put the aircraft at risk!. ie you can dive towards the ground on mac 2.2 normally and kill yourself. which is completely different from pulling the stick and making a turn that exceeds the structural limits recorded in the flight control system and cause the destruction of the device. the system is not infallible. it does restrict the pilot’s commands if they put the aircraft at risk! and if you didn’t understand that it is extremely dangerous to lose your wings in any plane. and that this system exists precisely to reduce this risk. I don’t know how to make you understand anymore.
well I’m going to exemplify one of the problems of understanding here, I have access to the tornado manual Ids marineflieger … and the systems used by the German air force are not the same as the British tornado flight system. just as they are not the same systems used by the Italian air force… the material you are presenting concerns British aircraft of the same model from the other nations involved in the project. however the avionics itself is different, precisely because they operate in a totally different way, the F.3 definitions cannot be associated with the other versions. as if all systems were completely equal. I put above a description of one of the fly by wire systems present in the tornado. spils in the same way as it is in the manual. which is obviously going to be different from the british or italian manual to sum up, in the same way that a bmw is a totally different vehicle from a rolls royce, although both perform the same function, the tornado ids marineflieger is different from the british tornadoes, mainly in its systems flight and armaments. you are generalizing the aircraft and you are wrong about your systems and the fact that the plane is in the game with glass spars.
Cool, provided you can prove its declassified and it is actually different for its flight systems (extremely doubt that is true) please post the cover and the sections on SPILS and CSAS that show its different and takes the G structural limits into account.
I will add I have the Italian IDS PA-200 manual and it has the exact same CSAS and SPILS systems.
Oh no look, the PA-200 is also the same… Imagine that.
I’ll do better than photograph and post the entire manual, which can lead to more misunderstandings. the Spils have the function of guaranteeing the operation without putting the fuselage at risk!, I’ll give you the definition of
fuselage: main body of the aircraft where the wings are attached.
Right so you don’t have it, and are unable to substantiate your claims.
Its pretty simple, GR1, PA-200, F.2 and F.3 (also the italian ADV) are all the same, you’re claiming the German IDS isn’t. So if you want that to be changed, we’ll need a primary source (the manual you claim to have) of which we’d need the front cover and the relevant section showing that its different.
serious ? how old is 10? you think I’m putting my account at risk by publishing even an old military document. I was there the last time you asked for evidence about specific ammunition and classifications. I’m not going to fall for that you added the vehicle in the game without having the real definitions based on the British manuals (error404). but if you want a good proof. in DCs the tornadoes work correctly. and it has the manuals and in the end it’s all a matter of whim or laziness to research. this explains most of the bugs.
The SPILS system is an integrated part of the Tornado flight control system. It’s purpose in life is to ensure the Pilot cannot lose control of the aircraft during certain flight regimes. A term often heard when describing fly by wire systems is ‘Carefree Handling’. This generally means that a Pilot can ‘drive’ the aircraft as they wish but this computer will stop any loss of control due to a request that the airframe cannot perform safely.
In the Tornado’s case a computer sits between the aircraft controls and the physical controlling surfaces such as the tailerons, rudder and spoilers. The computer receives signals from the pilot through the controls and decides whether or not to pass these to the control surfaces as requested by the Pilot. The computer also receives a vast amount of information from sensors mounted within the airframe and compares these against what the Pilot is asking for. It then instructs the control surfaces to deliver the best possible performance available for the manoeuvre requested without causing a departure. A departure is generally any loss of controlled flight.
These systems are not foolproof, they will not for example stop the pilot flying the aircraft into the ground.
*curiously this is the description of splis both in DCS and in flight simulator.
It’s good that you read the manual again, you’re missing something
Again, another game is not proof of anything and doesn’t not override the British and Italian manuals. Clearly this conversation is going no where, should you wish to share primary declassified source materials to substantiate your claims then a report can be submitted based on those documents.
“the worst blind is the one who doesn’t want to see” I’m not the only one informing you that you are wrong. and honestly posting docs won’t change anything. It’s not about correcting or improving, it’s about convincing you. I am absolutely sure that you will come up with any excuse to invalidate my post whatever it may be. and after what happened with the classified documents, it became clear that you are not to be trusted after all, the vehicles involved remain the same, you only understand one way, boycotts. unfortunately that’s the truth but don’t worry soon there will be others and when the difference is felt in the financial, then you will go after the corrections. have a great day and thanks for all the imbalance, lack of historical contest, buggy vehicles and bad economy. but keep doing exactly what you do. because everything is going perfectly wrong and the game is getting worse and more pay2win as it should be
Yes it will, we do forward reports and changes are made based on primary source documentation (declassified).
You have failed, I remain unconvinced, but should you present primary source documentation (declassified) I will absolutely change my position on the matter.
The manuals Gunjob has are pretty much a Tornado pilots bible. If they were to do something that is not in that manual or states they shouldn’t do it and they proceed to do so, they would be in the shit.
I suggest you either prove that you are right with legitimate, declassified Tornado IDS documents or go home. Comparing it to DCS - a VIDEO GAME - is not a legitimate source.
Gunjob and a few others have worked their asses off to get the Tornado into the state it is today.
Yeah he wont win that one, the tornado is propably the most discussed vehicle in the old forum with 233 pages to get it to the point it is, loved seeing how passionate people were about it, the only other thing that comes close to it i think was our discussion about the Puma IFV… with 140 pages mainly because all of its inconsistencies, but there isnt to much known either since it is so new, but i digress this isnt the place to talk about it
Yeah nice state. You roll - wing snaps off. You dive - wing snaps off. You bank - wing snaps off. You correct your heading to bring a bomb into target - wing snaps off. You air-spawn in GFRB and get locked up by SAM vehicles, you turn … ofc spawn speed is already to high and the … wing snaps off.
Loadout - MK1000 free fall bombs (unguided) or 4x GBU16. This bs 1x GBU-24 is a joke, lets pretent it isn’t there. Thats already it. Super anemic, useless in GFRB. Especially compared to other Strikers around 11.3.
Thx for these people to work their asses to get the Tornado into the state it is today. Thx for the most useless 11.3 Strike Aircraft this game ever had. No flight model, no loadout, no hope. Why so few CMs, despite these huge CM pods? Where’s the radar jammer?
Sad thing is in youtube clips you can see Tornados flying turns and rolls at speed without ripping off their wings. The pilots manual is somehow wrong, probably kind of Nato desinformation or something. How many flight accidents are known about Tornados throwing of its wings?
SPILS limits the AOA the aircraft can pull in order to prevent departure. It does not limit the g that the aircraft can pull in order to avoid structural failure, that is simply not its job.
Multiple Tornado Manuals and Panavia publications support that fact.
