![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "WaltBJ" wrote in message om... There's a mix here involved. Max G available, G onset (how fast can you load it up) and corner velocity - the minimum speed do you need to generate the lift necessary attain max G. A lot of limitations pop up now. Higher the G, teh stronger tha irplane must be, and therefore the weight goes up, so the wing has to be bigger. Also to sustain the G you need more thrust because induced drag (drag due to generating lift) goes sky-high. Generally the design working G limit has been either 7 1/2 or 9 - and with a 50% safety factor that means the structural yield limit ( bent and won't 'unbend' either 11 1/4 or 13.5 G. Human G tolerance depends a great deal on training fitness and 'want to'. I have seen 10.5 on a G-meter whena student 'dug in' an F4 decelerating through the Mach - my forward push stopped it from going even higher. My G tolerance came from flying the F102 sans G-suit and hasseling with anything that came along. It could pull 3G at 200 KIAS, 7G at about 325, though not for long (delta wing at airspeed!) FWIW I have a friend who was conscious and talking to the doctors on USC's centrifuge at 11 G sustained. He is about 6-2 and 180. Also, I know of two incidents were the pilots recovered their aircraft pulling 12 (F106) and 13 G (F86D) respectively after getting the nose buried close to the ground. Yes, the aircraft were severely bent, but the pilots survived. Adrenalin is a wonder drug in these cases - special cases of 'want to'. Walt BJ Yeah, it's a multiples thing all right, especially if you throw corner in there . Below corner you're aerodynamically limited and above you're structurally limited; go high enough and you're thrust limited as well...... but just considering g alone which was his question, and forgetting rate and radius, you can pull max g all the way out to the right side of the envelope until either you or the airplane starts complaining :-) But I agree with you. You can't even begin to discuss fighter performance using a one aspect only condition. There's just too much involved, and the whole thing has to be integrated into the discussion for anything to make sense at all. Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Old Plans, New Part Numbers | [email protected] | Home Built | 3 | December 16th 04 10:25 AM |
NACA Numbers??? | c hinds | Home Built | 3 | October 11th 04 09:40 PM |
Press fit numbers? | Boelkowj | Home Built | 1 | April 29th 04 06:51 PM |
Any Canadians Who Can Provide Numbers on a Champ, Taylorcraft, or Luscombe with Warp Drive Propeller? | Larry Smith | Home Built | 7 | December 21st 03 09:39 PM |
Darpa contract numbers | - = krusty = - | Home Built | 9 | July 23rd 03 03:22 AM |