Pilot Limitation under load and stress

[ACG_Dickie]

Pupo I am referring to when you are in pursuit of a 109, not bouncing him.  Those types who know you are in firing range and know they cannot get out of range or out turn so will yank the stick fore and aft violently and randomly in order that you cannot get good hits, safe in the knowledge that you have low calibre weapons and little ammo too.

[Gort]

The most important phenomenon to model is aerodynamic buffet. That's how you fly a flighter in combat, by feeling the buffet and adjusting the pull accordingly. Light buffet in most planes for sustained turning, heavy buffet for maximum, energy bleeding performance to max the turn rate. After that is somehow modeled with excellent fidelity, then g load effects on pilots can be modeled.

 

Things like limiting a sim pilots ability to change views instantaneously, especially from from looking over one shoulder to another. That should take a second or tow, and of course gray out under G is important and should not be disabled in the game.

 

Usually when under heavy G, you were focused in one direction anyway, making very small shifts in vision with your eyes, straining like a mule with your anti-gloc breathing, helmet jammed against the seat back or canopy. You were experiencing some level of tunnel vision in that realm.

 

Losing sight was a constant problem in real life, something that sim artificialities don't often model well.

[Joker_23]

I am both hands up for this idea,it is very nice. Flight sim games always have the most put into FM and DM,and we forget the actual most important thing - The Pilot.

 

A plane is just a bunch of metal/wood without a pilot.

[ACG_Dickie]

Do the devs read this stuff?  I suspect they do but I would be interested in a reposnse of some sort,  even if it's only to confirm it or know that they understand the proposal.

[DB605]

In my opinion most of these "pilot limitations" would just make playing more annoying. Black/redouts and injuries are enough for me.

[Caudron431]

Great ideas Osprey, I hope we can have them implemented in the game. The view management under G and the fatigue are definite must haves. They would improve realism greatly.

 

We need a realistic model for the pilot!

[4Shades]

I agree, that would be most immersive and frustrating! And you would have to fly very smart, conserving your body energy as well as your aircraft energy.

[Sternjaeger]

as a pilot that has experience also on high performance propeller planes and warbirds, I can tell you that fatigue is surely an element to be taken into account, but your organism and muscles get used very quickly to stress and your tolerance increases accordingly, and the "air sickness" that a passenger may experience is not to be taken into consideration: I can take someone up for a ride and make them puke their living souls out, and I would still be fresh as a daisy.

 

Another thing to take into account is adrenaline and body shock: when doing aerobatic manoeuvres or a dogfight your body reacts accordingly. It's kind of like going for a jog and then you have to do a sprint because a dog is chasing you ;-) so yes, you'll feel like a ball of ache later on, but during flying you won't notice much difference.

Wounds and shock are another thing: there have been reports of pilots going into proper shellshock when being under fire, so much that their bodies would just let go and they would start to shake uncontrollably, wet themselves or throw up. 

 

Now how are you gonna decide the trigger mechanism for that? Kinda difficult.. surely we can build a sort of "fatigue sequence", but then again some pilots have a much higher tolerance than others: a short, stocky fellow with high blood pressure might not be considered "fit" on the ground, but put him in an aeroplane and he's gonna pull high Gs around you...  so should your body shape, weight and age should be taken into account? I don't think we can get that far yet..

 

I suppose the best example though is eyesight: some of the most successful pilots were truly eagle-eyed, and learned how to scan and focus the sky to look for planes. How are you going to simulate that? 

 

So yes, a simulator is a sensorially-speaking dumbed down version of real life, and there are some elements that can be simulated, but we have to accept the limitations

[Quax]

This is an interesting thread. In a WW2 dogfight the capabillity af the pilot had more influence than the plane. A 109 pilot could easily outturn a Spit, if he was the better pilot. That´s why they didn´t know anything about B´n´Z planes or "turners". 

An experienced pilot did know very soon after starting the turning, wether the opponent was better. He started looking for an "exit" , if this was the case.

A friend of mine (wingman of a 109 expert) can exhaust an experienced acrobatic pilot within very few minutes nowadays (and he is 90 years old ! ...but still physically fit). He was surely flying even more extrem when he was 20. We shouldn´t underestimate, what the really good ones were able to do. 

 

I don´t see a convincing concept of programming the restriction imposed by the pilots. It would make no sense to limit the time of max g turns f.e. As you know, how it is programmed, you could use it to win the fight. This was not possible. They didn´t know the stamina of the opponent.

 

A good FM (like in ROF) will prevent unrealistic manouvers (as we see in other sims).

Furthermore injuries prevent the pilot of using the full control forces. Blackout is implemented, but that shouldn´t be too early. I guess this will be the same in BOS. I wouldn´t go further.

 

 

 

... Kinda difficult.. surely we can build a sort of "fatigue sequence", but then again some pilots have a much higher tolerance than others: a short, stocky fellow with high blood pressure might not be considered "fit" on the ground, but put him in an aeroplane and he's gonna pull high Gs around you...  so should your body shape, weight and age should be taken into account? I don't think we can get that far yet..

...

 

So yes, a simulator is a sensorially-speaking dumbed down version of real life, and there are some elements that can be simulated, but we have to accept the limitations

 

 

+1

Edited October 18, 2013 by Quax

[Quax]

The most important phenomenon to model is aerodynamic buffet. That's how you fly a flighter in combat, by feeling the buffet and adjusting the pull accordingly. Light buffet in most planes for sustained turning, heavy buffet for maximum, energy bleeding performance to max the turn rate. 

 

ROF does have this implemented to FFB. Shaking the plane visually doesn´t help, as you don´t see it most of the time. For non-FFB sticks there is no way to do it.

[Blakhart]

Quax, how much experience do you have in old il2 ?

 

Because to know what we are talking about you should know what the game physics allow to do in the game...

[Quax]

You are aware, that BOS is based on an enhanced ROF engine ?  The name should be all it has in common with old IL2 

[Blakhart]

Ok... its not an offence. Is it to make clear did you saw on own eyes magic La5 G-fight, Shitfire turning around the tree or Bf negative-positive G dance...

[4Shades]

Hi Quax!
 

[Crump]

Have a look at Red Orchestra - near misses on you result in suppression effects that limit vision, hearing and reactions. It's very do-able in flight sims imho. Simulating controls getting heavy and/or locking would be good to.

That would be a good way to simulate the disorientation of accelerations.

 

Osprey,

 

I have a USAF study done post war on the mean tracking error of a pilot under Ghz (acceleration in the z axis). It attempts to quantify how easy it is to keep a gunsight piper on a target while experiencing both RoR (Rapid onset Rate) and GoR (Gradual onset Rate) Ghz.

 

IIRC, the error was up to 85% and lasted iaw the onset rate and magnitude of Ghz experienced. GoR took longer to experience effects but the effect was more dramatic and lasted longer.

 

RoR effects came on quickly but less dramatic and shorter in duration.

 

In short the study concluded it was difficult for the average fighter pilot to accurately track a maneuvering opponent under Ghz.

 

I also have a study conducted by the NACA on the stick forces the average pilot could produce in each axis. This became part of the stability and control standards adopted by the United States in 1942.

 

I would be happy to share what data I gave to see this modeled.

The most important phenomenon to model is aerodynamic buffet. That's how you fly a flighter in combat, by feeling the buffet and adjusting the pull accordingly. Light buffet in most planes for sustained turning, heavy buffet for maximum, energy bleeding performance to max the turn rate. After that is somehow modeled with excellent fidelity, then g load effects on pilots can be modeled.

Exactly. Best turn performance should occur at the point where there is no buffet just at the edge of the light buffet. The harder the buffet, the more energy it requires.

 

Modeling this would add another layer of depth to the fights.

[A_S]

G-force profiles (from pilots in accerlators) are available as unclassified information.

There is enough material out there (tons of it) going into to specifics such as rapid onsets, sustained loads, the bodily types of vision loss etc etc etc.

 

 

Two things to consider though:

 

- No anti-g suits available, not compressed air nor liquid (WW2 here)

- Every human responds different so an average data has to be concluded from the available G-profiles as standard.

 

Fighting the pilot (pilot fatigue) aswell and not only the plane is a fundamental part of fights.

And btw, a blacked out pilot does not only loose control of the stick but also the control of the trim-wheel (in IL-2 one can recover with trimm even if blacked out ).

 

What i have never seen been simulated is the limitation of head-movement under heavy load. There is a reason why pilots turn their necks BEFORE they pull hard, because under heavy load ones head feels like an elephant bu** 

Maybe do-able with delayed or slowed TrackIR or head POV movements.

[Sternjaeger]

Your head movements don't slow down under heavy Gs, you just learn to deal with it and strengthen your muscles or move before pulling Gs

 

When I started flying it was very tiring to go through Gs, now I can pull to 6 or move my head easily at around 4 Gs. It takes a bit of getting used to, but again adrenaline and concentration help as well. It's like driving a car: you're concentrated on doing what you're doing and you don't feel nauseous or tired (well at least not until you land!).

 

Bear in mind chaps that today on a sim we keep on going and going, fighting until we run out of ammo, but in real life many pilots turned on their heels and zoomed back where they came from.

 

I think the real defining flaw is the fact that we know we can respawn..

Edited October 21, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Venturi]

RE: the head turn limitation.

 

Pilots in WW2 a/c used shoulder, lap, groin belts similar to modern race cars. I have raced a formula 3 car, pulling over 2 lateral g's and 2 longitudinal gees, and can verify that anything past 120degrees deviation from straight ahead, left or right, is impossible to achieve whilst strapped in tightly. Now, maybe fighter pilots did not strap in tightly like formula car drivers, but I suspect they actually strapped in very tightly indeed. Nothing more scary than having to pull g's and knowing you will be thrown around like a rag doll... think about it

[Venturi]

Additionally, I agree with lateral head movement being very difficult whilst pulling g's. However, vertical head movement is not nearly as restrained. This makes sense, as anatomically, the anterior and posterior muscles of the neck and head are much more powerful than the ones controlling rotation and lateral inclination. The stronger the muscles, the better head position is maintained under load.

[Sternjaeger]

I fly in vintage and aerobatic aircraft and all we use is 4 or 5 points seatbelts, but we tighten them only on takeoff and landing, mainly because you need to move your torso around a bit whilst in the air, whilst you want to be securely strapped in on takeoff and landing in case something doesn't go "according to plans".

 

The main difference is that we are not submitted to lateral Gs, so lateral stability is not as important, this allows us to turn around quite well actually (we can easily look over our shoulders). 

 

Pulling positive Gs is not too bad, it really hits you at first, but you learn to compensate and you deal with it, the real hard stuff is pulling negative Gs, there's no way to compensate for that, you truly feel them in your whole face, it feels like your brain wants to blow out of your skull and your eyeballs want to pop out, it's not just about red vision..

[Crump]

Two things to consider though:

 

- No anti-g suits available, not compressed air nor liquid (WW2 here)

- Every human responds different so an average data has to be concluded from the available G-profiles as standard.

The average data assumes no G- suit and no anti-G maneuvers are performed. Which is very useful for World War II profiles.

[Crump]

Here is a NATO Post war study.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA235181

[A_S]

Your head movements don't slow down under heavy Gs, you just learn to deal with it and strengthen your muscles or move before pulling Gs

 

 

You show me that under heavy combat loads (7.5G+) and a helmet  and keep tally on the bandit

 

Extract from a specific source:

 

 

 

4.5.9 Head Positioning.

 

4.5.9.1 Improper head position during high G defensive turns is a common error. The first

instinct is to attempt to support the weight of your head and helmet using your neck mus-

cles alone. This is basically impossible, and can lead to serious muscle injury at high G

levels. Equally unacceptable is the practice of looking at the adversary under low G, then

looking forward during the break turn (High G), then looking back to reacquire the adver-

sary after the speed and G bleed down. You cannot exploit a pursuit error you do not see.

4.5.9.2 The best technique is to use the seat headrest to support your helmet during the

turn. The following example is for a right turning break:

4.5.9.2.1 As you begin the roll to Lv on/slightly low, rotate your upper torso about 45

degrees to the right, and lean your upper body slightly to the right. Turn your head to

the right another 45 degrees or so and tilt it back just enough that you can see the

adversary on the reference line with your eyeballs at their extreme upward and right

slave limits. This position will place the right side of your helmet against the lower left

side of the ejection seat headrest. Let the headrest support the weight of your helmet,

and you will be able to turn very hard in relative comfort while watching the adversary.

By rolling your helmet against the headrest and moving your eyes, you can follow the

adversary through a wide range of flight paths. (See figure 4.29 above, Head Positioning.)

 

4.5.10 Initial Break Turn.

The initial break turn needs to optimize the defender’s survival

and be a combat-oriented habit pattern. With this in mind, the following four steps must be

instinctively and simultaneously made.

 

4.5.11 Reduce power to sub-AB.

There is some debate on MIL versus idle power breaks vs.

specific IR threats. To keep this unclassified, the only in-all-cases habit should be an idle

power break assuming the worst case scenario.

 

4.5.12 Lift vector slightly low.

It is critical to get adverse background versus modern IR

missiles. Although a low-lift vector will provide the attacker some turning room, it is

imperative to survive. The defender can worry about the free turning room if he’s still alive to

be concerned about it!

 

4.5.13 Maximum G pull.

Make it hard as body/stores limits allow. The body limits

definition is staying awake and the ability to analyze the attacker’s actions. One cannot

effectively fight proper BFM if you see a black dot or end up G LOCed. You must see the

pursuit course and ordnance shot to effectively defend yourself.

 

Additional Sources:

 

High G Centrifuge Training:  http://www.medind.nic.in/iab/t06/i1/iabt06i1p1.pdf

Centrifuge training vis-a-vis G-LOC incidents - an update: http://www.medind.nic.in/iab/t02/i1/iabt02i1p42o.pdf

G-AWARENESS FOR AIRCREW AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 11-419

 

 

Note* posted links are unclassified and public

Edited October 22, 2013 by A-S

[Sternjaeger]

 

You show me that under heavy combat loads (7.5G+) and a helmet  and keep tally on the bandit

 

lol well i don't use a crash helmet, but other pilots I know do and they're very manageable, mainly because 7.5G is something you don't normally pull on a propeller plane (unless you're an insane Red Bull races chap, and yes, they look around whilst pulling!)

 

http://youtu.be/aUcGsHBl5Dc?t=2m2s

 

Besides let's not forget one thing: there's quite a difference between sustained G and G peak. I can enter a turn at 4G and just maintain 2.5G through it, it's not like you pull 4G all the way.

 

A trained pilot can do a lot more even without anti-G suit: again, the Red Bull pilots reach peaks of 12G (some even pass the 13G mark!), 3/4 minutes of pure bashing!!

Edited October 22, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[A_S]

I am aware.

 

Point is (as this post is about pilot limitation under laod), that in sims you can pull heavy loads (sustained or instantanious) and can "flipp" your head around in "no time" without any punishment or struggle. This has never been simulated afaik. Was just an idea

[Sternjaeger]

another interesting video, this time a proper wartime research on G effects

 

look at the video from 40:27

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1tFuLcqn3Y&feature=share&list=PL69B0CB4788F64720

[ACG_Dickie]

I fly in vintage and aerobatic aircraft and all we use is 4 or 5 points seatbelts, but we tighten them only on takeoff and landing, mainly because you need to move your torso around a bit whilst in the air, whilst you want to be securely strapped in on takeoff and landing in case something doesn't go "according to plans".

 

The main difference is that we are not submitted to lateral Gs, so lateral stability is not as important, this allows us to turn around quite well actually (we can easily look over our shoulders). 

 

Pulling positive Gs is not too bad, it really hits you at first, but you learn to compensate and you deal with it, the real hard stuff is pulling negative Gs, there's no way to compensate for that, you truly feel them in your whole face, it feels like your brain wants to blow out of your skull and your eyeballs want to pop out, it's not just about red vision..

 

 

This is one of my arguments,  that whole bucking bronco neg-pos-neg violent bunting that some guys do when you are onto them. I even had someone do this to me the other day in a Ju88 in COD, fully loaded with bombs.  It's clear here that is cannot be done in real life,  he would've seriously injured or killed his crew, not to mention knackering the aeroplane up.

 

Regarding the looking around.  With respect you are performing pre-defined moves, you know where you are going,  so I don't think your head movement is in the same context.  Would you do the same trying to shake somebody from your tail?  I guess the Holy Grail is to mimic all of the the limitations you have in such a situation in a real aircraft, only in game.

 

Valuable input though, thanks  

[Crump]

 

5.9.1 Improper head position during high G defensive turns is a common error. The first

instinct is to attempt to support the weight of your head and helmet using your neck mus-

cles alone. This is basically impossible, and can lead to serious muscle injury at high G

levels.

 

 

Despite internet experts, I would trust the engineers, scientist, and fighter pilots who put their lives on the line with this information.

[Sternjaeger]

This is one of my arguments,  that whole bucking bronco neg-pos-neg violent bunting that some guys do when you are onto them. I even had someone do this to me the other day in a Ju88 in COD, fully loaded with bombs.  It's clear here that is cannot be done in real life,  he would've seriously injured or killed his crew, not to mention knackering the aeroplane up.

 

Regarding the looking around.  With respect you are performing pre-defined moves, you know where you are going,  so I don't think your head movement is in the same context.  Would you do the same trying to shake somebody from your tail?  I guess the Holy Grail is to mimic all of the the limitations you have in such a situation in a real aircraft, only in game.

 

Valuable input though, thanks  

 

I guess it depends: surely in real life they would have thought twice before pushing a Ju88 through positive and negative Gs to avoid an attacker, but then again a lot of the choices we do when flying a sim are drawn by the fact that if we screw up we don't die, we just respawn. 

 

Funnily enough, if you start flying your missions with the intent of not being killed, you'll see a totally different way of dogfighting and thinking ahead before charging blindly into a fight. 

 

Once again, it's the human factor that makes the huge difference: for instance, if you had to start from scratch every time you died during a career or your respawn could be to two weeks, you'll see a lot more attention to careful flying. But then again who wants that? Perhaps it's about finding the right squadron who has the right mentality.

 

Regarding the head movement, do not forget that the G-load goes head-toe or toe-head, so there is no strain as such to turn your head around, it makes you feel terribly nauseous the first times though, because your internal ear is also under g-load.

Despite internet experts, I would trust the engineers, scientist, and fighter pilots who put their lives on the line with this information.

 

Crump, you seem to be a pilot yourself (at least judging by your avatar!), you're telling me you've never pulled some Gs and had a look around whilst doing it? 

Edited October 24, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[ACG_Dickie]

He's not a pilot, not even a virtual one.

[Sternjaeger]

He's not a pilot, not even a virtual one.

 

lol one would think so, considering his love for engineering, I still need to meet a pilot that truly cares cares about or believes anything an engineer says  hehehe

 

obviously we're just kidding Crump, no harm intended!

Edited October 24, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[DD_bongodriver]

Not true, pilots don't give a crap about anybody not just engineers......

 

But in all seriousness this friction between pilot/engineer relations is most eagerly perpetuated by engineers.

[ACG_Dickie]

Well as long as it doesn't derail this thread because this is a message I want heard  

[DB605]

This is one of my arguments,  that whole bucking bronco neg-pos-neg violent bunting that some guys do when you are onto them. I even had someone do this to me the other day in a Ju88 in COD, fully loaded with bombs.  It's clear here that is cannot be done in real life,  he would've seriously injured or killed his crew, not to mention knackering the aeroplane up.

 

How it is even possible to do that much g's with fully loaded Ju 88? Do you have any videos to show such movements? I'm certainly not able to do that with Junkers in clod.

[Rama]

But in all seriousness this friction between pilot/engineer relations is most eagerly perpetuated by engineers.

Not only,

 

In the French air army, there are 2 recruiting sectors, one through the "école de l'air", which delivers a training including an engineering backgroud (for the air forces careers), and another which is mostly in-flight training (for the pilots under contract).

I have often heard the pilots under contract say: "there are 2 kind of pilots, those who know how a plane fly but are unable to fly it correctly, and those who can't tell you how a plane fly but fly it properly"....

[Crump]

 

 I still need to meet a pilot that truly cares cares about or believes anything an engineer says

 

 

Really?

 

You will never fly planes for the folks I've worked for.........

 

Please walk into the Chief Pilot's office and declare your distain for what the engineers say!

[Sternjaeger]

Lol you just like to contradict people for the sake of it mate ;-)

 

But seriously, can you answer my question on your experience with high-g manoeuvres? It's always good to compare different experiences.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[A_S]

I pulled really hard on G-strings once... Does that count?

[DD_bongodriver]

I pulled really hard on G-strings once... Does that count?

 

Pictures or it never happened.......unless of course you were the one wearing the string......we don't need pictures of that......unless you are a hot chick......then pictures are good again......

[Crump]

Lol you just like to contradict people for the sake of it mate ;-)

 

But seriously, can you answer my question on your experience with high-g manoeuvres? It's always good to compare different experiences.

 

I own an aerobatic aircraft and yes I fly aerobatics.

 

Even a lightweight Gentex weighs 15-20lbs under 6 G's.  That adds considerable strain to your neck muscles.

 

That is why most flight helmets in WWII were leather.  Adding a headset and Oxygen brings the weight up even more.

 

Here is my aircraft.