PDA

View Full Version : G-forces and Blackouts



josephs1959
03-03-2005, 10:27 AM
In response to WW MAX GUNZ, 1)I am certain that in the game the Spitfire MK IX HF performs an overhead Loop tighter and quicker without any blackoutthan a D-9. Fine, no problem with that issue. One plane has different characteristics than another. My basic question is, speed being equal. If a plane performs a loop tighter and quicker(spitfire)wouldn't that impose more G-forces and resulting in a blackout sooner on the pilot? I don't see how the laws of physics change in one cockpit form another. 2)As for the Data approach, I can only tell you what I experienced in the sim that is supposed to be based on reality.I am not an historian or scientist.I merely see this as an oversight that needs to be checked out and corrected. VW-icefire. If the spitfire is "mushy" at higher speeds than why was the response not only tighter but quicker? Gentlemen I don't seem to be ungrateful. I have gotten my money's worth.I do enjoy the Game. But this seems to be an obviious oversight that needs your attention and in doing that the game can only get better.

josephs1959
03-03-2005, 10:27 AM
In response to WW MAX GUNZ, 1)I am certain that in the game the Spitfire MK IX HF performs an overhead Loop tighter and quicker without any blackoutthan a D-9. Fine, no problem with that issue. One plane has different characteristics than another. My basic question is, speed being equal. If a plane performs a loop tighter and quicker(spitfire)wouldn't that impose more G-forces and resulting in a blackout sooner on the pilot? I don't see how the laws of physics change in one cockpit form another. 2)As for the Data approach, I can only tell you what I experienced in the sim that is supposed to be based on reality.I am not an historian or scientist.I merely see this as an oversight that needs to be checked out and corrected. VW-icefire. If the spitfire is "mushy" at higher speeds than why was the response not only tighter but quicker? Gentlemen I don't seem to be ungrateful. I have gotten my money's worth.I do enjoy the Game. But this seems to be an obviious oversight that needs your attention and in doing that the game can only get better.

Choctaw111
03-03-2005, 12:11 PM
Blacking out may indeed happen at different Gforces in different AC. Just because you start blacking out at, say, 5 Gs in one aircraft does not mean that you will start blacking out at 5 Gs in another. It all depends on how the pilot is sitting in the plane, the angle of the seat and several other factors which would contribute to how quickly blood rushes from your head to your feet. So the fact that you feel that this is an obvious oversight may indeed be much research conducted by Oleg to determine when a pilot will blackout for different aircraft. If not then I hope to see this fixed as well.

TheGozr
03-03-2005, 12:23 PM
I really hope that 5 G is not the black out point.
It's to low.

ColoradoBBQ
03-03-2005, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
I really hope that 5 G is not the black out point.
It's to low. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could black out easily at 5 Gs if you reach that point too fast. G-suits were not in use much in WW2 except for some prototypes.

ImpStarDuece
03-03-2005, 11:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by josephs1959:
1)I am certain that in the game the Spitfire MK IX HF performs an overhead Loop tighter and quicker without any blackoutthan a D-9. Fine, no problem with that issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

G force effects, both positive and negative are UNIVERSALLY APPLIED and have nothing to do with individual aircraft. Oleg has stated, repeatedly I might add, that there is no difference from one plane to the next with regard to this issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by josephs1959:
One plane has different characteristics than another. My basic question is, speed being equal. If a plane performs a loop tighter and quicker(spitfire)wouldn't that impose more G-forces and resulting in a blackout sooner on the pilot? I don't see how the laws of physics change in one cockpit form another. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats because they dont. Not in this game. There is no difference in the modelling of G effects on pilots.

However, changes in the pilots seated position can negate and delay the physical effects of high G forces. See the article at Rings PRO site on British turn tests for the Hurricane an Spitfire vs the Me 109. The Hurricane had its seat inclinde backwards which allowed the pilots to effectively pull antoher 1.5 to 2 gravities above normal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by josephs1959:
As for the Data approach, I can only tell you what I experienced in the sim that is supposed to be based on reality.I am not an historian or scientist.I merely see this as an oversight that needs to be checked out and corrected. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very few of us here are scientists or historians (though my honors degree is in history http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). All that is needed is a track made in the current version showing the difference if their is one.

If you think there is a significant difference, perform a standardised test.

An example might be this; go to cockpit off, hud gauges on view. Take the Spitfire IXH, wingtip somoke on, and do five loops at midday on the Crimea map. This is the standard map for FM tests. Start at the same speed and altitude every time (within about 1% or so). Try to recover at the same altitude and heading each time. Record your track. Note the times that; G-effect onset occurs, the altitude and angle of attack that it occurs,k atlitude of apogee of the loop and the altitude that you came out of the loop.

Now do the same for the Fw-190D9 and a third randomly chosen plane as a control.

If you have serious issue with your re****s, email them to the bug reporting adress for 1C and see if you can get things changed!

LEXX_Luthor
03-04-2005, 12:33 AM
joseph:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can only tell you what I experienced in the sim that is supposed to be based on reality.I am not an historian or scientist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Don't feel bad. We once had a "real life" jet pilot here (3,000hrs, so say) who came to the board making the same claim that P~51 blackout comes earlier than a given internet opponent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Its always either P~51 or 190~Dora because both share the same excellent elevator response at high speed (and both are the most popular Hollywood planes with good elevator) and they all say they blackout before the Other Guy in the Other Plane and so black out and lose all their internet Brownie Points http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif when they try to TnB their BnZ plane at high BnZ speeds (never could figure that one out).


mmmmm, on the Other Hand, we could setup a circle of static objects in FMB and fly the circle and compare the blackouts. Those static lights (the bright white is best) can be raised into the air, and assuming circle Radius R and angle A we calculate Xo+Rcos(A) and Yo+Rsin(A) can yield positions that place all airborne lights in a circle about some selected origin (Xo,Yo) on the map....Crimea map I guess although the objects in the mission text file can be cut~n~pasted to any mission file given any map (better, the loaded map name can just be changed in the mission text file). Tell ya, Oleg really did us a Favour in using simple text files for mission files. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Thanks Oleg!

A circular pattern of light "towers" could be made that may be easier to fly. For each collection of lights that make up a circle, cut~n~paste copies of the lights in the text file, only changing the altitude...if I recall it should be the last number in the light object information in the mission file. Thus we have a number of light circles all stacked on top of each other, a wall of sorts.

VW-IceFire
03-04-2005, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by josephs1959:
In response to WW MAX GUNZ, 1)I am certain that in the game the Spitfire MK IX HF performs an overhead Loop tighter and quicker without any blackoutthan a D-9. Fine, no problem with that issue. One plane has different characteristics than another. My basic question is, speed being equal. If a plane performs a loop tighter and quicker(spitfire)wouldn't that impose more G-forces and resulting in a blackout sooner on the pilot? I don't see how the laws of physics change in one cockpit form another. 2)As for the Data approach, I can only tell you what I experienced in the sim that is supposed to be based on reality.I am not an historian or scientist.I merely see this as an oversight that needs to be checked out and corrected. VW-icefire. If the spitfire is "mushy" at higher speeds than why was the response not only tighter but quicker? Gentlemen I don't seem to be ungrateful. I have gotten my money's worth.I do enjoy the Game. But this seems to be an obviious oversight that needs your attention and in doing that the game can only get better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I haven't seen your test but I'm going to say that you simply were not going fast enough. The FW190's elevator outperforms all others but only above 400kph IAS. If you're going into the loop at say 450 or 500kph (which IMHO is the only speed I would enter a loop in a FW190 by the way!) then the FW190D-9 is going to have so much more play in the elevator and thus capable of a much tighter loop than the Spitfire at the same speed.

The Spitfire has several advantages. Its wingloading is better for retaining energy in manuvers and it will retain its speed and probably achieve a tighter loop. The wing itself is better at high AoA and therefore better equipped to make the manuver - at least in my book.

I'm giving you suggestions to look at and test because I could be wrong - I'm just repeating a fact that Oleg once came out and said that the G blackouts were identically modeled for all aircraft. In theory, the FW190 apparently was one of the best at preventing G blackout (the pilots position was such to reduce the possibility) but that advantage is not modeled and therefore its the same as any other plane. That said, its both an advantage and curse for any plane.

An experienced FW190 pilot is not likely to loop ever. Or turn with a Spitfire for more than a couple of seconds. And blacking out in aircraft seems to be "easiest" in the FW190, P-51, and Ki-84...surprise surprise, all of these have extremely effective high speed elevators. I see it as a simple pattern.

hamselv2
03-04-2005, 06:45 AM
G-forces (and a lot of other parameters by the way) on the plane can be readout realtime using free Devicelink software, when flying offline.
Comparison of 'blackout' G-forces of planes should be easy.

TheGozr
03-04-2005, 11:18 AM
Black out under 5G at any speeds you shouldn't fly in military planes in real life, that is why many ww2 pilots died during fights.

Now is to know in what the game want to simulate the weaker pilots, Aces or a good medium.

JG52_Meyer
03-04-2005, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:


The Hurricane had its seat inclinde backwards which allowed the pilots to effectively pull antoher 1.5 to 2 gravities above normal.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmmm the Hurri or the 109? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ImpStarDuece
03-04-2005, 08:30 PM
Sorry, interpretative error. What i should of said was; "the Hurrican had its seat modified and specially inclined for the test"

That any better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-04-2005, 08:56 PM
1) make and save tracks, 1C before would only accept .trk tracks, that is full mission.

2) set up a devicelink program to capture G forces in a log. Also get speed, alt, pitch
and heading.

3) run the tracks in playback with devicelink capturing the logs.

4) compare the logs.

5) if the results say one plane sustained higher G's and that one did not black out then
zip up the tracks and logs with easy to read note, send to 1C and post up here.

It's really not hard to show when you have data logging capability.

Check about blackouts, FAA says time in G's makes a difference and sites stunt pilots
who pull over G's for very short periods, also go from high + to high - in only seconds
and do not black out. It takes measurable time for delay of oxygenated blood to the
brain to cause blackout. That also depends on health, what you have eaten, if you have
been hyperventillating prior to the move (increases blood oxygen, you can pump up you
blood and brain cells) and straining techniques to keep blood from pooling low in you.
I think that the sim does have a short time delay in the modelling, this has been
discussed with short answers from Oleg.

Blackdog5555
03-05-2005, 01:14 PM
Whee do u get datalink?

LeadSpitter_
03-05-2005, 02:02 PM
The average male pilot blacked out at 4g in wwii, with the gsuit 5-6 g.

They did not have the training or knowledge of building up leg muscles abs and neck muscles of todays airshow pilots, scream and flex all muscles to prevent the b/o for example patty wagstaff can hold 10gs, shes a woman and women hold g's better then men plus shes trains every single day, she does not wear a g suit or pressurized helmet either. The inclinded seat helps alot and leg positioning of her aerobatics ac alot.

weight height and experience taking heavy G's all makes a pilot able to not blackout like some of the experienced vets, but then again alot of the world war ii aircraft would overstress thier airframes at 8-12gs.

Pattys ac is rated at 20g tolerance which is more then a human can survive, it would break all your bones killing you.

LeadSpitter_
03-05-2005, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ColoradoBBQ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
I really hope that 5 G is not the black out point.
It's to low. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could black out easily at 5 Gs if you reach that point too fast. G-suits were not in use much in WW2 except for some prototypes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

your absolutely wrong here col, gsuits were used by the americans and british 43 44 45 widely, even the women who just ferried aircraft used them as well. They were not prototypes and used rarely but very very widely used and common.

LEXX_Luthor
03-05-2005, 05:36 PM
Flying Tigers' Pappy Boyington had lots of neck muscle Stamina. Tightening his neck muslces Pappy could out-turn all US Marine pilots of his day in mock air combat (and out-wrestle them all on the ground). Pappy was so tough, he could ignore Claire Chennault's direct order not to turn with Japanese fighter planes. In his first combat, Pappy turned...

Pappy never turned again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Its a funny story, Pappy used his old trick of tight neck muslces but the Japanese STILL got behind him. Getting shot up, he remembered Chennault's order, and dived his P~40 to safety and into History.