RIP Lt. Col. Eric Schultz.

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

arrow-nautics

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
  • Location: Halifax

Unread post10 Sep 2017, 21:34

Please forgive me for this thread. A couple too many pops coupled with stupid judgement at the time. :(
There's an old rule among many in the fighter procurement business: "Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Stop".
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 18803
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Sep 2017, 12:20

Fatal Nevada Crash Involved Foreign Aircraft Type
11 Sep 2017 Guy Norris

"...Sources indicate Schultz was the Red Hats squadron commander at the time of his death. The Red Hats became an unnumbered unit within the Detachment 3, AFTC test wing after the 413th flight test squadron (formerly 6513th test squadron) was deactivated in 2004. Over recent years the unit has operated a variety of Russian-developed combat types, including the MiG-29 and several Sukhoi-developed models such as the Su-27P, one of which was recently observed flying in the vicinity...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/fatal-n ... craft-type
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

lbk000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post12 Sep 2017, 23:37

RIP

For what little it's worth, like a year ago in Digital Combat Simulator the developers implemented structural strength characteristics in their Flanker and it came as an unexpected surprise to users who had for a long time neglected the real world operational restrictions that the Flanker could actually fall apart during maneuvers. A G-limiter system found on the actual aircraft was implemented a few months later, which greatly increased the safety margin, but the typical armchair pilot who was used to being able to pile on 10g's at the bottom of a barrel roll nevertheless found themselves flying half an airplane.
Beyond that, there are all sorts of other aerodynamic unpleasantries stemming from its unstable design, like its propensity for quickly turning negative AoA into an inverted superstall. A quirk that I don't know if exclusive to DCS is that the Flanker becomes a real coffin anytime something bad happens -- any loss of control surfaces more often than not will induce a rapid tumble that leads to a blackout, forcing you to ride your airplane into the dirt.

It's great when flown according to the book, but it's not a carefree aircraft, and I can't help but think about the shock of going from a carefree aircraft like the F-35 to the Su-27.

Again, FWIW.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 16:20

lbk000 wrote:For what little it's worth, like a year ago in Digital Combat Simulator the developers implemented structural strength characteristics in their Flanker and it came as an unexpected surprise to users who had for a long time neglected the real world operational restrictions that the Flanker could actually fall apart during maneuvers. A G-limiter system found on the actual aircraft was implemented a few months later, which greatly increased the safety margin, but the typical armchair pilot who was used to being able to pile on 10g's at the bottom of a barrel roll nevertheless found themselves flying half an airplane.
Beyond that, there are all sorts of other aerodynamic unpleasantries stemming from its unstable design, like its propensity for quickly turning negative AoA into an inverted superstall.


It's curious that you're mentioning DCS since currently I'm playing a campaign in DCS with the Flanker (Su-27) with of course the new "Advanced Flight Model" (or whatever the developer/ED calls it) "in tandem" with what I usually play -> Falcon BMS (currently I'm playing a default Korea map campaign with the F-16 Block 40).
Yes, the DCS new flight model for the Flanker seems to be top notch and yes, I can also confirm everything you said!


lbk000 wrote:A quirk that I don't know if exclusive to DCS is that the Flanker becomes a real coffin anytime something bad happens -- any loss of control surfaces more often than not will induce a rapid tumble that leads to a blackout, forcing you to ride your airplane into the dirt.


Yes, I also agree that this must be a bug! Once you get into one of those weird "inverted flat spins" the pilot enters in a permanent state of blackout until the aircraft inevitably crashes into the ground and the player pilot will obviously get killed.


lbk000 wrote:It's great when flown according to the book, but it's not a carefree aircraft, and I can't help but think about the shock of going from a carefree aircraft like the F-35 to the Su-27.

Again, FWIW.


I can also confirm that the Su-27 is quite a "pig" in terms of agility when it's heavily loaded with weapons and fuel.
And it's great to have this two great sims (DCS and BMS) and I also can confirm that in BMS which is in my opinion a quite better sim than DCS (except for the graphics) the F-16 agility which could also be considered a "carefree aircraft" is superior to the Su-27 in DCS when both aircraft are similarly loaded (fuel and weapons).
Even the F-15C which currently in DCS also comes with the "advanced flight model" flies better and is even more agile in some flight envelops than the Su-27 (also in DCS) - And notice that DCS is a RUSSIAN made combat flight sim :wink:

And lets not even start with the quality (or lack of it) of the Russian Air-to-Air missiles...

Moreover, the Su-27 despite having a G-limitator and some sort of flight stabilization (which I don't think it's a FBW but can be overridden BUT seriously THIS IS NOT ADVISED!!) it requires an almost constant trim pitch adjustments specially during cruise flights but also advisable while flying at very low altitudes - If you don't have a good trim pitch adjustment while flying low with the Su-27 it's quite easy to crash the aircraft into the ground :shock:
Offline

viper12

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 18:38

ricnunes wrote:It's curious that you're mentioning DCS since currently I'm playing a campaign in DCS with the Flanker (Su-27) with of course the new "Advanced Flight Model" (or whatever the developer/ED calls it) "in tandem" with what I usually play -> Falcon BMS (currently I'm playing a default Korea map campaign with the F-16 Block 40).
Yes, the DCS new flight model for the Flanker seems to be top notch and yes, I can also confirm everything you said!


Viper 1, Sentry 1, be advised, threat aircraft, bullseye 3-1-5, 60 miles, Angels 25

I remember the days of the 8 BLU-27's of doom, and in another version, I think one of the early FreeFalcons, you could supercruise in your F-16C Block 50/52 when RTB, with Mach 1.30 at 35-40K ft...
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3042
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 19:32

viper12 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:It's curious that you're mentioning DCS since currently I'm playing a campaign in DCS with the Flanker (Su-27) with of course the new "Advanced Flight Model" (or whatever the developer/ED calls it) "in tandem" with what I usually play -> Falcon BMS (currently I'm playing a default Korea map campaign with the F-16 Block 40).
Yes, the DCS new flight model for the Flanker seems to be top notch and yes, I can also confirm everything you said!


Viper 1, Sentry 1, be advised, threat aircraft, bullseye 3-1-5, 60 miles, Angels 25

I remember the days of the 8 BLU-27's of doom, and in another version, I think one of the early FreeFalcons, you could supercruise in your F-16C Block 50/52 when RTB, with Mach 1.30 at 35-40K ft...


I would routinely TFR at 100ft all the way to the target, drop eggs, then blast up to 45,000 and once I hit Mach 1.6 I would pull back to Mil and "Supercoast" to a point where home plate was 5 degrees below the horizon then idle in. good times.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 21:30

viper12 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:It's curious that you're mentioning DCS since currently I'm playing a campaign in DCS with the Flanker (Su-27) with of course the new "Advanced Flight Model" (or whatever the developer/ED calls it) "in tandem" with what I usually play -> Falcon BMS (currently I'm playing a default Korea map campaign with the F-16 Block 40).
Yes, the DCS new flight model for the Flanker seems to be top notch and yes, I can also confirm everything you said!


Viper 1, Sentry 1, be advised, threat aircraft, bullseye 3-1-5, 60 miles, Angels 25

I remember the days of the 8 BLU-27's of doom, and in another version, I think one of the early FreeFalcons, you could supercruise in your F-16C Block 50/52 when RTB, with Mach 1.30 at 35-40K ft...


Yes, I also played older versions of Falcon, this since version 1.08 (or something like this). I also remembered to have played SuperPAK (don't remember the right version) and somehow more recently the Red Viper/Free Falcon versions.
However BMS 4.33 is a much more "advanced beast", namely on flight models which are much superior and realistic compared to all other older versions. So with BMS, no you won't be able to supercruise the F-16 :wink:
Graphics in BMS 4.33 (since 4.3x) also got a major boost and now uses Direct X9 while all older versions of Falcon used Direct X7 (if my memory doesn't fail me).

In terms of weaponry with Falcon BMS I basically use "only" the following -> GBU-31 (both Mk-84 and penetrator variants) and SDBs for fixed/static targets, GBU-12s to moving targets and AMRAAM's for Air-to-Air targets. Kinda reminds a certain other fighter aircraft's payload doesn't it :wink:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 21:32

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I would routinely TFR at 100ft all the way to the target, drop eggs, then blast up to 45,000 and once I hit Mach 1.6 I would pull back to Mil and "Supercoast" to a point where home plate was 5 degrees below the horizon then idle in. good times.


The other day I was forced to do a similar mission (profile). The good days are still here :D
Offline

viper12

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 21:45

ricnunes wrote:
Yes, I also played older versions of Falcon, this since version 1.08 (or something like this). I also remembered to have played SuperPAK (don't remember the right version) and somehow more recently the Red Viper/Free Falcon versions.
However BMS 4.33 is a much more "advanced beast", namely on flight models which are much superior and realistic compared to all other older versions. So with BMS, no you won't be able to supercruise the F-16 :wink:
Graphics in BMS 4.33 (since 4.3x) also got a major boost and now uses Direct X9 while all older versions of Falcon used Direct X7 (if my memory doesn't fail me).

In terms of weaponry with Falcon BMS I basically use "only" the following -> GBU-31 (both Mk-84 and penetrator variants) and SDBs for fixed/static targets, GBU-12s to moving targets and AMRAAM's for Air-to-Air targets. Kinda reminds a certain other fighter aircraft's payload doesn't it :wink:


Indeed, the last version I've touched was BMS 4.32, and no supercruise at all in it. However, GBU's are too refined for me ; JSOW's or CBU's or Mk20's are better for my needs, such as...

Destroying a whole bunch of aircraft taxiing...

Mincing the 4-ship flights of choppers, even when airborne and moving...

Getting over 50 A-G kills in one mission by targetting the clumped arty battalions on the HART sites just north of the DMZ...
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3042
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 21:52

Perhaps we should move this discussion to a SIM thread out of respect to the late Lt. Col?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2344
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 22:33

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Perhaps we should move this discussion to a SIM thread out of respect to the late Lt. Col?

...yes please
:oops:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 22:48

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Perhaps we should move this discussion to a SIM thread out of respect to the late Lt. Col?


Sure, I fully agree. Perhaps some moderator could move our posts about simulations to another thread in the proper place.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2344
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post17 Sep 2017, 02:21

http://alert5.com/2017/09/17/former-tes ... more-64949

...hearsay....
Former test pilot for Buran said he warned Eric Schultz a month ago Magomed Tolboyev, the test pilot for Soviet Buran space shuttle, said he had been in contact with the late Lt. Col. Eric Schultz a month ago. Tolboyev said he warned Schultz not to carry out a certain maneuver that Tolboyev had performed on a Russian aircraft. The type of aircraft and maneuver was not disclosed in the article. “You’ll perish, you can not do what I do.”
:?
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: juretrn and 8 guests