Inflight system-failures

[Vicente_cgn]

Hi Haole!

I would like to know if you ever had any system-failures while inflight. How big is the possibility of this and which system are concerned more frequently, which less?

Would it make sense for FO to model not only failures because of weapon hits but random system-failures too? Or does it happen to rarely?

Thank you,
-Vic-

[Buckshot]

I'll answer the second question for you, it certainly makes sense to model failures even if they were a very rare occurance (which from my experience, minor system/indicator failures happen fairly often). The reason being, it adds a huge amount to the immersion/realism factor, there suddenly is a real reason to do pre-flight, and in-flight checks, learn emergency procedures, have a greater understanding of what everything does/what the various warnings mean.


Of course we will have to make them user-selectable, as some won't want that level of realism, another thing I have in mind is the ability to create faults when flying as an instructor in a 2 seat trainer.

[Vicente_cgn]

I'll answer the second question for you, it certainly makes sense to model failures even if they were a very rare occurance (which from my experience, minor system/indicator failures happen fairly often). The reason being, it adds a huge amount to the immersion/realism factor, there suddenly is a real reason to do pre-flight, and in-flight checks, learn emergency procedures, have a greater understanding of what everything does/what the various warnings mean.


Of course we will have to make them user-selectable, as some won't want that level of realism, another thing I have in mind is the ability to create faults when flying as an instructor in a 2 seat trainer.

Hi Buckshot!

You're right about the immersion-factor and if failures happen at a realistic rate that's great! :smile:

Bye,
-Vic-

[mihi4]

another thing I have in mind is the ability to create faults when flying as an instructor in a 2 seat trainer.
Yeeessssss :)
That's fantastic to hear, thx a lot, Buckshot!

Maybe even an (networked) Instructors/Operators Station (like MSFS has) could be implemented? (for 1 seat planes like the "C")...
So somebody could fly a mission, and an Operator on another machine could change faults on the fly. (in a perfect world, even creating threats on the fly would be fantastic *g*)

greetings
michi

[kodak]

@ Michi

Oh yessss.... this would be ultimately cool! A great tool for sadists like you and me! :evils:


@ g2i

Please implement such a functionality - I'm sure not only we pitbuilders will love it! :bigsmile:

[42jeff]

You would be frightened to learn just how often these aircraft have inflight faults. We flew a 6 turn 4 today (launched six and caught them...sent four back up) and only 2 of the 10 sorties came back Code 1 (perfect shape). Of course that WAS after a four day weekend. The pilots aren't the only things that miss flying over long weekends....

[35AoA]

I'll answer the second question for you, it certainly makes sense to model failures even if they were a very rare occurance (which from my experience, minor system/indicator failures happen fairly often). The reason being, it adds a huge amount to the immersion/realism factor, there suddenly is a real reason to do pre-flight, and in-flight checks, learn emergency procedures, have a greater understanding of what everything does/what the various warnings mean.


Of course we will have to make them user-selectable, as some won't want that level of realism, another thing I have in mind is the ability to create faults when flying as an instructor in a 2 seat trainer.
wanna make the sim realistic ... make an Ops department within the sim, the player has to check to see if he's made the flight schedule, if he doesn’t then he doesn’t fly … (based on what quals he has earned - starts off as a basic wingman, then progresses to 2-ship lead, then 4-ship lead, then mission commander - and that is what kind of flight he is eligible to be scheduled for) once the player has made the schedule, he has to plan the flight ... make flight planning realistic: make the player have to translate an ATO, coordinate with other flight leads, tankers, AIC/GCI, intel, weather, etc ... then after 6 or 8 hours of planning & briefings, the player must click on "talk with maintenance" button to see how many jets are available - make it random, i.e. you're squadrons jets can be full-up (extremely rare), your squadron is shut down because of very few "up jets" and call it a "maintenance day" (rare), or your squadron has about half the jets "Up" (most likely) ... so it's your lucky day and you have enough jets to make your ATO line so now you have to "man-up" … during your simulated pre-flight walkaround you see one of your bombs is fused incorrectly so you have to "call" the Ordies over to “fix it” which takes another 10-15 minutes … now you have to go through the full start-up procedure, and it's another crap shoot - your plane captain at anytime during the start-up can find a "leak", your APU or motor won't start, your jet has a problem recognizing the ordnance you have loaded up, your battery is dead, etc - make it random, it can happen anytime during the start-up, so if your jet is hard down, you have to go to the “spare” and do pre-flight & start-up all over, hoping this jet isn’t down in the line ... you're jet made it this time, but one of your jets in your 4-ship is down due to a non-working radar, RWR, or another mission essential equipment, and there are no back-ups today so you only have 3 jets to go on this mission ... you taxi your 3-ship to the hold short, nobody breaks (this time) ... you take-off, but only after sitting in the hold-short for 10 minutes waiting on your -2 because his INS dumped, and when that gets fixed you have to wait another 10 minutes for a tanker that is on a 10 mile final ... finally you get your take-off clearance, but on take-off only one of your landing gear comes up and you & your flight have to spin it overhead the field to trouble shoot … you have sheared a Hyd line and have to go through the Hyd emergency EP; your backup Hyd system is working fine but now you have to go through the emergency gear extension EP in order to get the remainder of your gear back down; it works so now you have to request tower to rig the arresting gear because your brakes only work on that particular hyd system that shit itself and you have to take a trap; that takes 20 minutes but no worries, you need to burn down a bunch of gas in order to not land heavy so you kick off your -2 & -3 to go fight the war while you orbit in the delta pattern ... you trap ok but now you have to wait for a tow (because you have no brakes & can’t taxi) and that takes 15-20 more minutes … you finally get back to your line and before you can call it the day and hit the fighter bar for some brews, you have to finish up the 2 reports that are 3 days late & your boss has been screaming at you for them........ now that’s some serious realism!

please do make a slider to adjust realism because some of us could care less about EPs & start procecures ….

[khanskyhawk]

Now THAT is a Murphy's Law mission if I've ever heard one. I think that much realism would drive folks away!

[Buckshot]

Yep, all of those items are in the short and long term development plans, and totally agree that these need to be user adjustable as not everyone wants it that realistic.

[Haole]

Hey guys,


I think that everyone that has flown the Viper has had several system failures at some point in time. I have had a few over the years but overall the Viper is a very dependable jet.
As mentioned above we will be putting system failures in the sim to help add to the realism. Flying in to combat is busy enough with no other problems. Throw in a generator failure, An "A" System Hydraulic failures etc and you could have your hands full. It just depends on what stage of the fight you are in as to how bad the outcome could be!

Thanks!

[grab]

The Viper is an amazing aircraft considering when it was made, how advanced it was at that time, and how it is today in comparison to the first. That being said, yes, lots of minor failures, most, believe it or not can be fixed by for example, turning your mfd's off and back on if they kick an MFL that won't clear, restarting flight controls after failing a bit check, we call these "falcon resets". Major failures such as gear doors not closing, gear not extending, hydraulic pump failures, no starts, false radar targets, etc etc do happen, but not near as often in other airframes. We use what is called an FMC (fully mission capable) rate, just means, can this jet go to combat, kill bad guys, and come home. The Vipers FMC rate hovers around 85% in the USAF, by comparison, the venerable F-15's rarely rises above 70%. As far as modelling this, I cant wait to see the end game result, its a very exciting and challenging concept, just getting the percentage of failures is a bear, but achievable. Just be prepared for what the guys like Haole go through, mission planning, getting airborne, halfway to target, radar takes a poop, turn around, go home and wait till tomorrow to fly, hehe, honestly I love the idea, big time immersion. Grab

[jethomasjr]

Here's one to add.....in 2000 while flying Northern Watch our Vipers took off. Just after hitting the tanker before dropping down into Iraq one Viper got engine vibrations and had to land at a alternate field in Turkey. Nevertheless, since I was the crew chief I had to go and help change out the engine. We loaded up on a C130 and away we went to rescue our Viper. Just before we got there the Turkish crew chiefs were doing a engine run on one of their Vipers. The bad thing that happened to one of their guys is he got sucked down the intake because they don't use run screens when they ground run their Vipers. We were heavily watched while at that air base. One of our troops had to use the latrine so bad he crapped his pants. He ate some food from the alley that made him sick. He asked not to go but they insisted he went. So the morale of this statement is engine problems.

Jack

[Afterburner]

I am an ex F-5S Tiger II Crew Chief. I left before I had a chance to cross-train on both the Super Skyhawk and Viper. Anyways I was told that the GE engines are better and more realiable than the Pratt & Whitneys. Any truth in this info.........fellow Crew Chiefs :smile:

[Buckshot]

hehe, this ones for Grab, GE's suck, P&W for ever.


lol, just kidding, I just know how much Grab loves the P&W :tongue:

Haole might have something to say in favour of this though, lol

[Afterburner]

HaHa....will be waitin for the Haole's reply :smile:

[grab]

Reliable, tough question, they both break for different reasons, GE's tend to break for components. Piece of crap, slow to light, non responsive Pratts tend to break for engine blade damage :). I will always prefer the GE, more thrust, better spool up rate and it was the first engine I ever worked, they say you are partial to that one but when it comes to reliability, they are about the same. The one thing I really do not like about a Pratt is you have to change the engine for virtually every preoblem, we give our Pratt rep alot of stuff because the only work related words ever to come out of his mouth are "pull the engine" hehe Grab

[Afterburner]

HaHa.......ok. Thanx for the info grab :thumb: I wonder which engine is OPS gona implement :alcohol:

[SUBS17]

Here's one to add.....in 2000 while flying Northern Watch our Vipers took off. Just after hitting the tanker before dropping down into Iraq one Viper got engine vibrations and had to land at a alternate field in Turkey. Nevertheless, since I was the crew chief I had to go and help change out the engine. We loaded up on a C130 and away we went to rescue our Viper. Just before we got there the Turkish crew chiefs were doing a engine run on one of their Vipers. The bad thing that happened to one of their guys is he got sucked down the intake because they don't use run screens when they ground run their Vipers. We were heavily watched while at that air base. One of our troops had to use the latrine so bad he crapped his pants. He ate some food from the alley that made him sick. He asked not to go but they insisted he went. So the morale of this statement is engine problems.

Jack

If they didn't let him use the toilet why didn't he just take a crap on the ramp! I'd rather do that than crap my pants. lol

[AMVI_Rebel]

I'll answer the second question for you, it certainly makes sense to model failures even if they were a very rare occurance (which from my experience, minor system/indicator failures happen fairly often). The reason being, it adds a huge amount to the immersion/realism factor, there suddenly is a real reason to do pre-flight, and in-flight checks, learn emergency procedures, have a greater understanding of what everything does/what the various warnings mean.


Of course we will have to make them user-selectable, as some won't want that level of realism, another thing I have in mind is the ability to create faults when flying as an instructor in a 2 seat trainer.

just discover this 3d, thanks:)

since 2004 which what si changed or what is working? ave you any update about checks and failure and therire injection (automatic/selectable/currencies)