"Mark Irvine" wrote

"Anonymous" wrote

Hobo wrote in message ...


How indicative of maneaverability are the max G numbers of fighter
aircraft?

Also, most new aircraft have reported max of 9Gs. Why are they all
coming out at this same number?

Modern aircraft are capable of higher G turns; however, in order to
stop the pilots from blacking/redding out and/or dying in their
seat, the computer controlling the fly-by-wire / fly-by-light
systems stops the turns going any higher.

I think

Cheers
Graeme


It could also be because they do not want to release into the public
domain
the exact performance of the aircraft? A few years ago all aircraft
seemed
to be listed as Mach 2.2 at altitude??

There are real physiological limits for piloted aircraft and "9G" designs
press that limit. Designing an airframe to greatly exceed the limits of the
wet-ware controller means that you are carrying structure that you will
never use. Unpiloted aircraft of course don't have that limitation, so
expect UCAVs to open that number up.

As far as Mach 2.2 is concerned, that number comes from the stagnation
temperature associated with the Mach number and the fact that most of the
fighters of that generation were aluminum. Aluminum airplanes get soft when
they dwell above M2.2 or so. Composites have better high temperature
characteristics than do Aluminum based alloys so if there is
a_requirement_for operation at higher Mach numbers then it's technically
possible to do so. Apparently there_is_no requirement, rather there is a
requirement for supersonic persistence in the M1.5 or so speed range.