Mr. Rasimus,

MiG-25 has sustained 5g limit with half fuel stated in every source I've
ever seen. Where did You get 2.5g? That was a limit for A-12/SR71 Blackbird.

Also, I have read article in which test pilot states that one MiG-25 went to
10.5g(!), the MiG-25 airframe got deformed but landed safely.

Maybe Mr. Cooper knows better than I do?

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Ed Rasimus wrote in message ...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:47:47 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

snip
I was going to jump into this yesterday, but delayed and "lo" I've
developed insight. I was going to dump my usual tirade about tactics,
training, weapons, mutual support, etc. Then, I returned to the
question.

It isn't about "fighter", it's about agility. "How indicative of
agility are max G numbers?"

I'd have to say, only minimally indicative. The 105 had a max positive
G of 8.67--a structure limit which was virtually impossible to attain,
except instantaneously. Airspeed bleedoff, if you get anywhere up to
those kinds of numbers meant you couldn't sustain for long at all.

The F-4, conversely had a 7.33 max, much lower, but no one will
challenge that the F-4 had greater agility than a 'Chief.

Clearly there's a "critical mass" sort of minimum G required to get
you into the A/A game. You don't go hassling with a 2.5 G limit MiG-25
even though you have weapons, thrust and airspeed. Corner velocity is
a consideration, attainable onset rates, sustainable G-loads,
rate/radius numbers, roll rates, all are players.

And, who can quantify that elusive "experience" factor. Doing
instructor continuation training in AT-38s at Fighter Lead-In, I
couldn't begin to pull the sustained G while twisted around in my seat
looking at my own rudder, but I could get the "big picture" of where
the battle was going and kick the young guys' butts at much lower G.

Sort of the old and young bull metaphor---young bull sees the herd and
says "lets run down and screw one." The old bull says, "lets walk down
and screw them all."