PDA

View Full Version : Oleg / 1C: Can we add G Suit effect for allied pilots?



HayateAce
12-06-2004, 12:42 AM
Developments in Aviation Medicine

The contribution of medicial service to tactical success is not only proper care for the sick and wounded, but also includes measures to protect and improve the efficiency of combat airmen and to prevent casualties from occurring.

Blacking out of vision has limited the sharpness of turns and pull-outs which fighter pilots have been able to withstand ever since World War I. The black-out is due to the pull of gravity (G) on the blood stream when the direction in which the body is moving suddenly changes so that the blood's weight is thrown from head to feet. The heart is unable to pump sufficient blood to the brain when the pull of G causes blood to pool in the abdomen and legs.

During World War II, both the Allied and Axis air forces have experimented with various methods which would combat black-out. Since the pursuit airplane is able to withstand more G than the human body, the pilot with superior G tolerance should be able to outmaneuver the enemy. The earliest workable G suits were introduced by the Canadian and Australian air forces, followed closely by the U. S. Navy. The AAF modified and adapted the 18-pound Navy suit after extensive tests on the human centrifuge at the Aero Medical Laboratory, Wright Field, Ohio, and evolved the G-3 suit. This is, in essence, a pair of pneumatic pants weighing 2 pounds and containing air bladders which automatically fill with compressed air from the airplane's vacuum instrument pump. The pressure is released when the airplane levels off. The effect of the air pressure in the bladder is to keep the blood from rushing to the lower extremities of the body and pooling there. While the extra G tolerance provided the pilot is theoretically limited, fighter pilots wearing the suit have never reported a complete back-out.

Several thousand G suits were shipped overseas to fighter groups in 1944, and, unlike many items of personal pretective equipment, they achieved immediate popularity among the men who have to wear them. Pilots have contributed case histories of kills attributed to the extra margin of clear-headedness the G suit gave them during pull-outs and turns. Equally important, the device reduces the fatigue frequently resulting from aerobatics.

Original Source (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/aaf/aaf-103.htm)


In the fall of 1944, the 357th combat-tested the new G-suits that had been developed for pilots, as Bud Anderson recounts. "The Mustangs could take very hard turns. Long before the wings flew off, the pilots would lose consciousness. Five G's and you might "gray out" but be able to function.

Six G's or so and you would black out completely. The form-fitting suits inflated as the airplane pulled G's, hugging you, and preventing the blood from leaving your head all at once. There were two experimental suits. One was water-filled, and turned out to be too cold at six miles up, even when filled with warm water on the ground. The other ones, air suits, drew air from the pressure side of the engine's vacuum pump. These suits wrapped around your abdomen, thighs, and calves, and inflated automatically. These worked much better."
"With the G-suits, we could fly a little harder, turn a little tighter. We could pull maybe one extra G now, which gave us an edge. There was no resistance to wearing them as we understood that wearing them was the same as making the airplane better."

Original Source (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_anderson.html)


Now, we have a Ta152 in the game:

Approximately 150 Ta 1252H-1 fighters were manufactured between January 1, 1945 and the final abandoning of production with the arrival of Soviet forces at the Cottbus assembly plant.

So surely we can have an Allied G Suit of which several thousand were delivered and of which well-known Ace Bud Anderson spoke highly of.

You don't have to really model anyting new, but perhaps make an adjustment to blackout for Allied pilots in 1944 planes and later ONLY.

Thanks for your consideration of this matter.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Hetzer_II
12-06-2004, 12:51 AM
The very good seat position of the 190 is also not modeled, it also helped against blackouts...

But if it is the last chance for you to gain kills and survive...

Greets

HayateAce
12-06-2004, 08:57 AM
Bump for G suit!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

RocketDog
12-06-2004, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
The very good seat position of the 190 is also not modeled, it also helped against blackouts...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I don't know about you, but when I fly the 190 the pilot appears to be lying on the floor.

Regards,

RocketDog.

VW-IceFire
12-06-2004, 09:46 AM
Oleg did say that G-suits and even Tail Warning Radar could be modeled if sufficiently detailed documents could be provided to him.

This was back in the AEP days...so I'm not sure if the offer still stands. But dig away!

x__CRASH__x
12-06-2004, 11:02 AM
I heard the Germans were experimenting with mind controlled aircraft. Lets model that in too!

HayateAce
12-06-2004, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I heard the Germans were experimenting with mind controlled aircraft. Lets model that in too! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooh neat. Do you have a track? Shallow attempt to derail the thread. No dice. Thousands of G Suits were DELIVERED. Thanks very little.

Bump for teh Gsuit!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NegativeGee
12-06-2004, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
The very good seat position of the 190 is also not modeled, it also helped against blackouts...

But if it is the last chance for you to gain kills and survive...

Greets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same was also true of the 109?

Willey
12-06-2004, 11:45 AM
Check the seat.

This is good: <pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">\_ ,</pre>

This is bad: <pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">|_
,</pre>

| and \ is the back.
, the rudder pedals.

VW-IceFire
12-06-2004, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I heard the Germans were experimenting with mind controlled aircraft. Lets model that in too! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mjollnir111675
12-06-2004, 12:26 PM
so then shouldn't oxygen mask be modeled as well??

Troll2k
12-06-2004, 12:32 PM
Oxygen masks are modelled.My pilot wears his all the time when I am up high chasing 109s.

WhiskeyBravo
12-06-2004, 12:35 PM
so then shouldn't oxygen mask be modeled as well??

Errrm..............they are!

WB.

JG5_UnKle
12-06-2004, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Now, we have a Ta152 in the game:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We also have the MiG-3U and there were only 6 of them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but anyway....

Add G-suits, no problem for me to see Pony drivers lose wings a little quicker http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif but as the whole of the sim models all pilots equal in terms of G it might be a change that 1C are not willing to make.

But what do I know, I'm not a programmer.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Daiichidoku
12-06-2004, 03:23 PM
Probably the most intriquing thread Ive seen, in terms of a subject model fo rthe game, dont think it ever occured to me before that way.

I have thought about the above briefly mentioned oxygen modelling for FB, and I'm not sure if we have it....but in some types, at a certain alt, varying for each, I can hear a sound like flaps...I think its oxygen coming on, but not sure...for me in the spit Viii its very pronounced, and can last a while...I think when Im passing though 12, 600 ft or somewhere thereabouts...just when one needs o2...

Assuming there is o2 in game, does it affect pilot at alt when o2 exhausted , by comsumption or damage? never noticed....(good new death excuse, hehe)

As for the G suits, why not, assuming it can be put into the game without a huge effort (anyone have word on this?), it would be accurate...

IRL those 51 pilots did have a definite advantage in G suits, those who managed to get some hours in a suit could really wring the 51 out (IMO) to some impressive moves, particularly at high speed, that many other types simply woundnt be able to do...

I have always attributed 51s ETO successs as mostly due to large numbers vs a LW with major issues to deal with by that time...from what Ive read, or seen, or heard. But in FB, of course, that important facet is missing, and should be addressed, at least...

To me, this is quite a reasonable item fo rinclusion in FB, and would welcome it...and Im no pony fan, they just dont cut it fo rme (for me, not you, so no comments botu that, plz! lol), if im in a DF, in any type, and I see a P 51 and ANY other type, both at similar relative alt, e state, attitude, etc, (and also assuming I dont know which online pilot is flying which), I will always go for the OTHER one first, save the pony for last, its the least capable of taking action or reacting to me...sorry, but thats the way it happens...

But ya, Gsuits would be cool...need info...
hey you US citizens, I know theres not many of you here, but howzabout your ...umm library of congress? us achives?....one those things? can info be referenced from there, inline, snail mail, or how about someone nearby one of those places?...hmmm or is it impossible to get anything out of those places for the acerage joe?...

sorry fo rthe length of this post, jus ramblin, hehe

Daiichidoku
12-06-2004, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Add G-suits, no problem for me to see Pony drivers lose wings a little quicker http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I forgot to add in my post,

Me too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HayateAce
12-06-2004, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Now, we have a Ta152 in the game:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We also have the MiG-3U and there were only 6 of them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but anyway....

Add G-suits, no problem for me to see Pony drivers lose wings a little quicker http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif but as the whole of the sim models all pilots equal in terms of G it might be a change that 1C are not willing to make.

But what do I know, I'm not a programmer.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for making my case!

1 - A small handful of Mig3us, and no G suit??

2 - Mustang wings falling off. See the strongest indictment yet that the Mustang model is incorrect as this game has it:

In the fall of 1944, the 357th combat-tested the new G-suits that had been developed for pilots, as Bud Anderson recounts. "The Mustangs could take very hard turns. Long before the wings flew off, the pilots would lose consciousness.

I can easily sheer wings off in a roll by applying rudder. I don't even gray out. Ailerons snap right off in a dive with 190s.

It is wrong, be sure.

lbhskier37
12-06-2004, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Now, we have a Ta152 in the game:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We also have the MiG-3U and there were only 6 of them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but anyway....

Add G-suits, no problem for me to see Pony drivers lose wings a little quicker http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif but as the whole of the sim models all pilots equal in terms of G it might be a change that 1C are not willing to make.

But what do I know, I'm not a programmer.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for making my case!

1 - A small handful of Mig3us, and no G suit??

2 - Mustang wings falling off. See the strongest indictment yet that the Mustang model is incorrect as this game has it:

In the fall of 1944, the 357th combat-tested the new G-suits that had been developed for pilots, as Bud Anderson recounts. "The Mustangs could take very hard turns. Long before the wings flew off, the pilots would lose consciousness.

I can easily sheer wings off in a roll by applying rudder. I don't even gray out. Ailerons snap right off in a dive with 190s.

It is wrong, be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would be a cool feature, as long as other blackout points are adjusted accordingly due to seat position.

Other than that, no you is wrong, be sure. P51 wings snap off because you are pulling instantaneous G's that are greater than the plane can take, P51 along with a few other planes have too light of controls are super high speeds and theirfore lose their wings when you jerk the stick. The reason you don't black out is because you don't instantly black out in real life, be surehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Willey
12-06-2004, 04:42 PM
You is wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

AlmightyTallest
12-06-2004, 07:35 PM
posted about this yesterday in the F4U-4 thread, bumping and pasting the following:

these guys were getting issued anti-G suites when they flew -1's.

Here's a link about that here:
http://www.vnh.org/FSManual/AppendixA.html


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>17 Jan 1943
Tests conducted at NAS San Diego by pilots flying F4U-1s report that the antiblackout suits developed at the Naval Aircraft Factory increased their tolerance to the accelerations encountered in gunnery runs and other maneuvers by three to four Gs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

x__CRASH__x
12-06-2004, 08:38 PM
Well, if Germany had them, I hope we see it for both sides.

Of course GL finding proof of somethign like that occuring on the losing side of the war.

Enofinu
12-06-2004, 09:49 PM
I think what HayateAce asks for, Diapers!!

WUAF_Badsight
12-06-2004, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
I can easily sheer wings off in a roll by applying rudder. I don't even gray out. Ailerons snap right off in a dive with 190s.

It is wrong, be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>then your problem exists in the Mustang having overmoddeled control surfaces

with less authority in the elevator , the Mustang will keep its wings & wont black out the pilot so hard

getting a G-suit will only solve one of these problems , refocus your whine on the cause instead of a symptom

GR142_Astro
12-06-2004, 11:10 PM
Wow badsight, I didn't see a whine but a post about G suits and their use in WW2. Maybe your bad sight allows you to see so much more than any other person on these forums.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Hetzer_II
12-06-2004, 11:12 PM
I cant understand people whining about the p51 has one of the best elevators in game... fly 109 and you will want your p51 back.

Just be a little gentle on stick and everything is fine..

But back to the g-suits:

Im not even shure if the p51 drivers with g-suit had an real advantage over 190 drivers which had a much better seat position.... If both will be moddeled... no problem but dont do just one thing...

Greets

LeadSpitter_
12-07-2004, 02:34 AM
i fly both and 109 can out turn it with ease even high speed now. its finally nice to see 109s pop wings off for once. I cant believe oleg did not fix the trottle back exploit of the 109s still in a dive 190s propitch superclimb.

I think you guys should spend more time in allied planes to see. Fly a month in allied and see

Aaron_GT
12-07-2004, 03:46 AM
I suppose the question is can a G suit be supported with the code. At the moment the G limits are the same in all planes, and how much work will it take to add new G limits for all aircraft in the code, along with fixing outright bugs. I think it would be nice to have different G limits (including the effect of the cockpit design of the 109 and 190) but I think at the moment the priority should be on fixing current bugs before adding features.

Another question is how many G suits were actually deployed for use? How widespread were they? If they were not used on all P51Ds then that will complicate the code as we will then either need an extra switch for G suit on/off, have all late P51Ds come with a G suit even if they didn't all come with them, or maybe even have multiple P51D versions with and without G suit support.

Another nice feature would be support for different fuel grades but I think the only way to support that in the current game engine is via different instances of the planes. It could get very complex very quickly!

I think that it is worth alerting Oleg to these options, though, so that the BoB engine can be made flexible enough to accomodate these things from the design stage.

clint-ruin
12-07-2004, 06:16 AM
As far as I remember, Oleg said that he would consider using them if sufficient information was provided on which squads used them operationally, and when that happened. The impression I got was that he would only consider spending the time to code them in for specific planes if they were a widespread piece of standard issue equipment.

I think extending the timeframe of the game into VJ day actions would make them much more likely to have been standard gear than they were in the ETO. Then again, MG seem to have many fewer manhours available for continued PF development nowadays and might not have time to put them in.

Has anyone asked Oleg about this since PF came out and gotten an answer?

Diablo310th
12-07-2004, 06:44 AM
Clint....I don't think anyone has mentioned this to Oleg since the beginning days of ACES. I honestly don't think we will see this modeled as I feel he will only model it if it was a standard piece of equipment. It was in wide use but not standard equipment. The G-suit was even issued to teh 56th in teh P-47's.

HayateAce
12-07-2004, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I cant believe oleg did not fix the trottle back exploit of the 109s still in a dive 190s propitch superclimb.

I think you guys should spend more time in allied planes to see. Fly a month in allied and see <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Hmm, 109 still slowing having reverse thrusters in a dive by throttle back? Also we have prop-pitch exploit climb in 190? Dang, time to give up Allied for good and take the super planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Leadspitter, I have seen you fly both Allied and Axis in Warclouds 44 server and when flying axis your name appears in the window every minute or so, apparently exploding opponents with ease. Now I know you are a good stick, but Oy! Something is just not right about 3.02. I am very glad it's only a beta! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HayateAce
12-07-2004, 06:08 PM
Interesting Leadspitter, anyway back to the G Suit!

Anyone have a starting place to search for official US documents on the suits? I'm a bit far from the Library of Congress at the moment. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Zen--
12-07-2004, 08:21 PM
" 190s propitch superclimb"


Anyone care to explain how to use this magical exploit, or just what exactly it supposedly does?

x__CRASH__x
12-07-2004, 08:51 PM
"109 still slowing having reverse thrusters in a dive by throttle back?"


What the hell is this? I always drop the throttle in a dive. I still exceed 700 most every time! What are you talking about?

OldMan____
12-08-2004, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
" 190s propitch superclimb"


Anyone care to explain how to use this magical exploit, or just what exactly it supposedly does? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

just some people think that the manual pitch in 190 is an exploid. They cannot understand..due to their own agendas.. that no way ANYTHIGN automatic at the 40´s would ever be more efficient that FINE manual control , that is not aeletronic injection system controled by computers. Just try driving a car with manual gears an d automatic gears... even today, automatic gears have NO CHANCE in performance against manual gear. That is modeled in game. The super auto mode from 190 is amazing at reducing work load to pilot.. but you will loose a little bit with it.

Zen--
12-08-2004, 07:35 AM
Agreed Oldman, but I posted test results showing level accelerating is WORSE on manual pitch in the Dora, so I can't see where people think the 190 has some super manual pitch climb advantage. Topspeed is also less and based on u/min and rate of climb, I don't see an advantage in climb either.

Chuck_Older
12-08-2004, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
The very good seat position of the 190 is also not modeled, it also helped against blackouts...

But if it is the last chance for you to gain kills and survive...

Greets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is why folks who are LW fans get labelled "luftwhiners". Your logic states that because the 190 has a deficiency, that means other aircraft must also suffer?

Well, since that might be the only way <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">you</span> can get kills, I hope the 190 gets fixed real soon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif See how that logic works?

As far as seat position vs g-suit advantage, can a reclined seat back press against your body to restrict bloodflow in anyplace except where the back of your body touches it? No? Yes? I think probably not.

Zen--
12-08-2004, 11:25 AM
Actually Chuck, a reclining seat does help with G force, my understanding is approximately 1/2 to 1 full G of extra tolerance. The F16 seat is reclined for exactly this reason...G force tends to pull straight down on you but by reclining the seat it reduces the total vertical distance between your head and your heart, which reduces the effect of G forces and delays the onset of blackout. So it's not about restricting bloodflow, its about reducing the distance the bloodflow has to travel, which then reduces the workload on your heart.



As for the poster who said a WW2 G suit could add up to 4 G's of tolerance...I wouldn't rule it out but think its unlikely, modern G suits are good for about 1.5 G's as I understand it. Not impossible, but it would be hard to believe that a 60 year old G suit would be better than a modern one, but then again stranger things have happened. I also don't believe that G suits gave the allies a decisive advantage. Like any piece of equipment it has a time and place where it was effective...you have to step back and decide how often in the grand scheme of things did making extra G's tolerance be advantageous, as opposed to setting up a better attack in the first place. Surely for defensive purposes it would be handy because you might make a tighter break turn, but then again 90% of planes were shot down by surprise, so having that advantage actually probably wouldn't be significant in the big picture, because you wouldn't see the guy coming anyway.

USAflyer
12-08-2004, 12:01 PM
I am a short individual in real life. I would like oleg to personally model my higher g tolerance online because of this. It is a well known fact that smaller people like me have higher g tolerances. But I think this should be modeled for me and only me because I am a paying customer of this series. If you can provide suffiecent proof to oleg that you are short (maybe a picture of yourself next to a ruler) then I would agree that you too should have this advantage.

robban75
12-08-2004, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Actually Chuck, a reclining seat does help with G force, my understanding is approximately 1/2 to 1 full G of extra tolerance. The F16 seat is reclined for exactly this reason <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The J35 Draken also was built with a 30 degree inclined seat, and it's popular to believe that it was inclined to give the pilot greater G resistanse, but in the Draken, just like in the F-16, the ejection seat couldn't have been fitted into the cockpit hadn't it been inclined. There simply wasn't enough room. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Today however most modern fighters are built with inclined seats for G tolerance. But that is a different story http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
12-08-2004, 12:30 PM
Yes, I understand that.

But if you re-read my post, I did not say the reclined seat has no effect.

I simply said does it do the same thing as the anti-G suit? Does it press against more than just the part of your body that touches a seat?

Obviously, the answer is no, the seat only touches the back part of your body.

The anti-G suit is all around your body. They both have benefit, but I do not beleive they confer the same degree of benefit

robban75
12-08-2004, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Actually Chuck, a reclining seat does help with G force, my understanding is approximately 1/2 to 1 full G of extra tolerance. The F16 seat is reclined for exactly this reason...G force tends to pull straight down on you but by reclining the seat it reduces the total vertical distance between your head and your heart, which reduces the effect of G forces and delays the onset of blackout. So it's not about restricting bloodflow, its about reducing the distance the bloodflow has to travel, which then reduces the workload on your heart.



As for the poster who said a WW2 G suit could add up to 4 G's of tolerance...I wouldn't rule it out but think its unlikely, modern G suits are good for about 1.5 G's as I understand it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The newest most advanced G suits today adds about 4-5 G's of G tolerance. It's highly unlikely that a WW2 G suit would be even close to this kind of performance.

robban75
12-08-2004, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
The anti-G suit is all around your body. They both have benefit, but I do not beleive they confer the same degree of benefit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sitting in a reclined position puts the heart closer to the brain, making it easier to supply it with blood. This is same with shorter pilots being more tolerant to high G's.

Zen--
12-08-2004, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

The anti-G suit is all around your body. They both have benefit, but I do not beleive they confer the same degree of benefit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol, and thats why I said the seat gives maybe 1/2 to 1 full G vs the suit giving possibly between 1 and 1 1/2 G.

Hope you didn't take my post as argumentative, got some wires crossed a little bit. Sorry misinterpreting what you wrote too, was not my intention to appear snotty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

S!!

Zen--
12-08-2004, 01:20 PM
Robban, 4-5 G's???

Wow, the last I heard was around 1.5 as I posted. I guess I was way off.

Aaron_GT
12-08-2004, 01:48 PM
"The anti-G suit is all around your body. They both have benefit, but I do not beleive they confer the same degree of benefit"

The extreme is supine which allows a pilot to tolerate short periods at 12G without blacking out, which is quite an improvement over normall sitting. Prone is a bit less good than supine. Prone and supine are both issues with regard to getting in and out of the plane, though.

TX-EcoDragon
12-08-2004, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Robban, 4-5 G's???

Wow, the last I heard was around 1.5 as I posted. I guess I was way off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Likewise. . .as far as I've heard.

The Current issue G-Suits (Stateside) provide about 1.5 +G additional tolerance, anti-G straining maneuvers (breath and muscle contraction based) provide about the same amount, giving about an overall +3 G tolerance increase over a passive pilot. There is however a new CE/ATAGS "full coverage" suit (45% larger bladder coverage area) system that is in testing that can increase this somewhat and reduce fatigue as a result of straining. The Finish Air Force have tested this full coverage suit that have said that it may give up to +3 G instead of the +1.5. The testing continues. In the US the ATAGS/CE system is only going to be implemented in the F-22. The USAF found three main issues with the system as reported by test pilots; many pilots have found the suits uncomfortable, restictive, and hot. . . in the F-15 the suit interferes with the stick, in the T-38 the suit interferes with the ejection system.

The "CE" stands for what they are calling Combat Edge, and this itself does not increase the G tolerance of the pilot but reduces the fatigue that results from the M-1/L-1 type straining maneuvers. The ATAGS system has been evaluated in controlled trials and here is one such report from early in this evaluation:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9491248&dopt=Abstract

TX-EcoDragon
12-08-2004, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

The anti-G suit is all around your body. They both have benefit, but I do not beleive they confer the same degree of benefit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol, and thats why I said the seat gives maybe 1/2 to 1 full G vs the suit giving possibly between 1 and 1 1/2 G. . . <snip>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reclined seating can provide much greater G tolerance than a suit does. if you were to pick only one method teh reclined seat is the way to go! Also, in negative G flight a G-suit is useless, reclined seats on the other hand can reduce -G discomfort somewhat as well as their +G tolerance increases. As some have stated the reason for this is not contact of the seat, but the vertical (with respect to the acting G load) distance between the head and heart.

lbhskier37
12-08-2004, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
The very good seat position of the 190 is also not modeled, it also helped against blackouts...

But if it is the last chance for you to gain kills and survive...

Greets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is why folks who are LW fans get labelled "luftwhiners". Your logic states that because the 190 has a deficiency, that means other aircraft must also suffer?

Well, since that might be the only way <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">you</span> can get kills, I hope the 190 gets fixed real soon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif See how that logic works?

As far as seat position vs g-suit advantage, can a reclined seat back press against your body to restrict bloodflow in anyplace except where the back of your body touches it? No? Yes? I think probably not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

?? this makes luftwhiner? So G suit should be modeled giving you better G tolerance in the game, but seat position shouldn't? If its possible in the game to give you better resistance to blackout with the G suit its possible for planes with better seating position too, and should regardless of side.

p1ngu666
12-08-2004, 09:47 PM
iirec g suits of different types give out around d day, to give the allies a surprise edge.

what oleg should do is use this a opportunity to add raf spec p51's (25lb boost) and 25lb boost ix and VIII http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. with g suits possibly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

oh and i guess reclined seat helps due to blood doesnt need togo as vertical, the distance is the same, just less steep http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

spent a second tryin to figure how u move ur head further from heart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

with something sharp i guess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Fehler
12-08-2004, 10:56 PM
I just want to point out to you guys one simple thing, and it would be a future whine if Oleg incorporated a G-suit for P-51 pilots....

You will appear to snap the wings off the pony SOONER because you will be able to get closer to the critical G stress already in the game. Remember that G-Suits affect PILOTS not airframes, thus if you think you are snapping wings off now as you go into a bad blackout from having way too much elevator authority, then this perception would only get worse because you wont blackout as fast, but you will still reach the stress limit for your wings.

And someone please mark my words, the whines will triple (At least) about the P-51's wings from people that refuse to understand this and think Oleg has crippled the P-51 for some evil reason. These are those here that believe this now, just wait until they perceive that are able to rip those wings off easier!

Mark this thread as a favorite so you can read my words should Oleg decide to model the G-suit in the game!

HayateAce
12-09-2004, 02:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
I just want to point out to you guys one simple thing, and it would be a future whine if Oleg incorporated a G-suit for P-51 pilots....

You will appear to snap the wings off the pony SOONER because you will be able to get closer to the critical G stress already in the game. Remember that G-Suits affect PILOTS not airframes, thus if you think you are snapping wings off now as you go into a bad blackout from having way too much elevator authority, then this perception would only get worse because you wont blackout as fast, but you will still reach the stress limit for your wings.

And someone please mark my words, the whines will triple (At least) about the P-51's wings from people that refuse to understand this and think Oleg has crippled the P-51 for some evil reason. These are those here that believe this now, just wait until they perceive that are able to rip those wings off easier!

Mark this thread as a favorite so you can read my words should Oleg decide to model the G-suit in the game! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well gee, that's not a very good reason to keep historical fighting tools out of a simulation.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

JG5_UnKle
12-09-2004, 02:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Well gee, that's not a very good reason to keep historical fighting tools out of a simulation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He didn't say that though did he?

VVS-Manuc
12-09-2004, 02:34 AM
If G-suits are modelled, Oleg have to consider, that not all pilots were equiped with it at one fix date. What about limitation for online servers, that only 10% or 20 % of P-51 pilots can use a G-suit? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG5_UnKle
12-09-2004, 02:36 AM
I'm not in any way against G-suits, who in their right mind would turn fight with a P-51 at high speed anyway?

Abbuzze
12-09-2004, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:

You don't have to really model anyting new, but perhaps make an adjustment to blackout for Allied pilots in 1944 planes and later ONLY.

Thanks for your consideration of this matter.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice story about this suits, allready read a lot of it, but still very good.
But if the suits are modelled, I want a adjustment for ALL 109 and 190, cause in this planes you are more in a lying postion and your legs are higher than in a P47/51, give you more resistance vs high g-forces!
After the tests with an 109E the Spitfire got 2 positions for you feets at the pedals, more comfortable, cruising-pos. and a combat-pos.

So maybe the easiest way to simulate this with the less rework at the code, is to reduce the geforceresistance for all US 43/and early 44 planes so the relation between the planes would be ok and all others can be untouched- just kidding...

All Planes in FB-PF have the same resistance agains g-forces, and this will not be chanced.
If I remember correct Oleg stated this some time ago.
Pity, would give the german planes an advantage they lack in this game.

Chuck_Older
12-09-2004, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"The anti-G suit is all around your body. They both have benefit, but I do not beleive they confer the same degree of benefit"

The extreme is supine which allows a pilot to tolerate short periods at 12G without blacking out, which is quite an improvement over normall sitting. Prone is a bit less good than supine. Prone and supine are both issues with regard to getting in and out of the plane, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we still talking WWII, or is this theoretical/contemporary advantages?

lbhskier37
12-09-2004, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"The anti-G suit is all around your body. They both have benefit, but I do not beleive they confer the same degree of benefit"

The extreme is supine which allows a pilot to tolerate short periods at 12G without blacking out, which is quite an improvement over normall sitting. Prone is a bit less good than supine. Prone and supine are both issues with regard to getting in and out of the plane, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we still talking WWII, or is this theoretical/contemporary advantages? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is talking about physical advantages that held true then just as now. The closer to laying down you are, the shorter the verticle component of the vector from the heart to the brain is. What is more difficult, pushing a 300lb box up a 15 foot long ramp or lifting it vertically 15 feet?

Chuck_Older
12-09-2004, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:

lol, and thats why I said the seat gives maybe 1/2 to 1 full G vs the suit giving possibly between 1 and 1 1/2 G.

Hope you didn't take my post as argumentative, got some wires crossed a little bit. Sorry misinterpreting what you wrote too, was not my intention to appear snotty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

S!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know you better than that, not to worry

Chuck_Older
12-09-2004, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"The anti-G suit is all around your body. They both have benefit, but I do not beleive they confer the same degree of benefit"

The extreme is supine which allows a pilot to tolerate short periods at 12G without blacking out, which is quite an improvement over normall sitting. Prone is a bit less good than supine. Prone and supine are both issues with regard to getting in and out of the plane, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we still talking WWII, or is this theoretical/contemporary advantages? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is talking about physical advantages that held true then just as now. The closer to laying down you are, the shorter the verticle component of the vector from the heart to the brain is. What is more difficult, pushing a 300lb box up a 15 foot long ramp or lifting it vertically 15 feet? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand that. What I am asking is: is this the maximum theoretical advantage that we can get, or does this apply directly to the benefit provided by the inclined seat in the FW190 we have been talking about. Obviously physics hasn't changed much since WWII, but is this what we see nowadays, or was this what they saw with the inclined seat in WWII?

lbhskier37
12-09-2004, 11:26 AM
They saw this in WWII I would think. After testing the 109, the brits made changes to the Spit to bring your legs up a bit for this reason. It's tough to say how much the benifit would be, but the same can be said for those old G suits.

TX-EcoDragon
12-09-2004, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
If G-suits are modelled, Oleg have to consider, that not all pilots were equiped with it at one fix date. What about limitation for online servers, that only 10% or 20 % of P-51 pilots can use a G-suit? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and in the end there are so many factors that there really is no way to reach a perfect compromise. Consider that a G suit only adds ~ 1 G of additional tolerance, consider that pilot height, aerobic fitness, muscle mass, degree of muscle control, frequency of exposure to high G, diet, amount of sleep the night before, ambient temperature, smoker or non, physiological stress responses and more can have much more effect than the previously stated 1 G, and seat position will have a significant effect as well. My point is, while it is probably appropriate to implement this in some situations, setting a G tolerance for a virtual pilot will always be a compromise. There will often be a deviation from what many pilots would have actually experienced. I fly with many people who are also experienced aerobatic/combat pilots and the amount of G tolerance variability is quite high. My G Tolerance from day to day may vary as well, even if most of the above listed factors remain the same. That is just the way it is. So Oleg and 1C can model G suits, pilot training and lifstyle factors (if known), seat angle, floor height, etc etc etc and reach a higher level of realism, but at a huge cost as far as programing efforts unless rather signifigant compromises are made.

And as Fehler said, most people would probably not like the effect. . . most pilots use physiological responses to Gs as sort of an internal G meter to aid in avoiding aircraft damage. . . that is even more important in a sim where the only thing you have is visual representations of G (other than those aircraft that have G meters in the sim) from what I hear many sim P-51 pilots are having a hard time with this as it is. :-D

GR142-Pipper
12-09-2004, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
As for the poster who said a WW2 G suit could add up to 4 G's of tolerance...I wouldn't rule it out but think its unlikely, modern G suits are good for about 1.5 G's as I understand it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True. They can add up to about 2 g's worth, max. Well worth having too.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-09-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by USAflyer:
I am a short individual in real life. I would like oleg to personally model my higher g tolerance online because of this. It is a well known fact that smaller people like me have higher g tolerances. But I think this should be modeled for me and only me because I am a paying customer of this series. If you can provide suffiecent proof to oleg that you are short (maybe a picture of yourself next to a ruler) then I would agree that you too should have this advantage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps he can model your feet not being able to reach the rudder peddles...except under high G loads. (snicker)

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
12-09-2004, 03:39 PM
"Are we still talking WWII, or is this theoretical/contemporary advantages?"

Prone and supine flying positions were experimented with by several countries during WW2 itself, especially by Germany. Although no production planes used the prone position in WW2 for pilot control if the war had continued some of the Luft 46 designs may have used it. The big issue was that ejector seat designs and the prone position did not really go well together.

The other issue was being able to see behind you. With supine behind you is about all you see. Plus it was felt that being supine was not good for combat agressiveness.

Basically G suits and ejector seats won out post war.

Zen--
12-09-2004, 10:39 PM
What is completely unfair is the G force tolerance of the 190's virtual pilot...I mean the guy can't even see over the dashboard, how tall do you think he is? He of all people should get the best G tolerance, considering he's only 3 feet tall for crying out loud.

robban75
12-09-2004, 11:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
What is completely unfair is the G force tolerance of the 190's virtual pilot...I mean the guy can't even see over the dashboard, how tall do you think he is? He of all people should get the best G tolerance, considering he's only 3 feet tall for crying out loud. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

JG5_UnKle
12-10-2004, 03:47 AM
LOL 3 feet tall http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Enofinu
12-10-2004, 10:18 AM
been flying quite lot last days, and, i find no problems wiht planes, in each side. guns kills on both sides with no problem, been staying alive easily, in both sides and got kills, esily as well. most of the ONLINE NOOBIE pilots just dunno at all how to fly or retain E, just pull hard and lose it all attitude seems to be pop now. no no boys, not like that. get some freakin skill and mind in ur flying. dont start to whine like hayate ace does. he sounds really noobish, imo.
i know quite lot Excellent pilots, from both sides, and they at least know how to use their ride. its really sad to see that many pilots been flying for long time and still have to mind what they do up there, well, maybe its that some are good in theory while some are at their best when in fight.

get some skill and think what you have done wrong before blaming UBER enemy plane or own ride. think hard.