Mistang

But he said all I have to do is find 1 accident report and the forums entire argument collapses. I doubt the archives will reply to my request as it's such a morbid thing to do but I'll try. The claim is physically impossible by an order of magnitude so it doesn't matter, now I just need a concrete instance of G force being the sole cause of any accident. Mods are free to close the thread. I'm satisfied with the result and will post if I ever get these reports.

[quote] A United States Navy Aircraft Mishap Board finding excessive G loading caused a catastrophic loss of an F-14, with a metered value between 6 and 8 G. [/quote] I don't think this actually exists. Can you find any such report for any accident, besides a handful of high profile cases about pilot error? Should I write to the library of congress and go through all the accident reports? I have no issue doing so.

You mean the "430 knots mumbled" video. Which is your entire argument. The rest of your replies are immaterial. I will look for the requested.

I have a masters degree. Want to see it? I don't think the rules allow me to post it.

Your own source says the plane falling apart at 10g for a second. 7g is half as much kinetic energy or two seconds. Your own source implies the turn would last two seconds. Your objection is a single phrase with no context, "430 knots". The technical documentation confirms 9g would destroy the plane immediately. It does not give a duration at different G but by the same math the 7g turn is two seconds. What evidence will you accept? Simply ask for one piece of evidence and I will present. You have not asked me for any specific piece of evidence. My ask is to show any pilot account or telemetry showing that it actually turned 7g for two seconds.

I don't really have anything at stake here, I just wanted to demonstrate basic math.

That doesn't say anything about the duration or refute my point in any way, it actually voiced concern the plane would break.

It was a gamble but I turned out correct. And fringe said a tomcat can sustain a 7g turn for 1 minute like in the game, so he's wrong.

It is off, but I corrected it in the next sentence. ke = mv2. This is 10gw not 100. Then I used a factor of 50 in the next sentence. 10gj divided by 300mpa tensile strength of rivets is 30. So I said 50, it doesn't matter. A plane changes velocity every 90 degrees in a 360 turn. So that's 4 times. A 10 meter object turning 100 m/s is 100 turns or 100/4 = 25 "turns". I rounded this to 20 and got 7000 degrees. Now you'll object to this generically without proving fringes point. 7000/50=140, so we can turn 140 degrees at mach 3. Then realistic considerations make this much less. After that turn the plane fails structurally.

I never cited YouTube.

I am fine with ending the thread as fringe refuses to support his claim.

Your claim was that the tomcat can sustain a 7g turn for a full minute or multiple turns adding up to that. That is false. If you are not defending that claim then the discussion is over and the game is wrong.

Finding a maximum G in isolation is sort of meaningless. Did the gauge slip around on its own? Etc.

All these prove op. It says a 130 degree roll will exceed.

These are about roll rates. Rolling is substantially easier than turning as the velocity is unchanged.