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.

That's a good way to express it. The tomcat can turn 100 "exceedances" (not clear what an "exceedance" entails) at 9g. Furthermore this is without any load or structural weight.

That's fine. Make it mach 2, it barely changes the result.

I made a minor error but it doesn't change the point.

Could you be more specific?

I can actually calculate the rivet strength and end it conclusively if you accept that. First off, it depends entirely on materials. The tomcat that existed on the drawing board was much more capable than the one that actually existed. So if you are going for technicalities any turn rate is possible and this discussion doesn't mean anything. If you are winning on technicalities the debate is over. If you are going by reality then saying stuff like "the tomcat can turn 7g for a full minute" is impossible. So a f 14 for example has a 3m wing length from front to back. It has a 1m diameter. The rivets are a cm and are spaced to cover about 10% of the plane. So a 3 m wing with 2 sides with rivets every 10 cm is 30 rivets. That's 300 grams of steel or 300 mpa of tensile strength. A plane turning 1000 m/s with ten tons is 100 gigawatts which will easily destroy these rivets. The actual aircraft has a 10 meter radius so this would be about 20 turns a second or 7,000 degrees. The stress needs to be 3000 times less or 50 times slower. That's 140 degrees a second. With weaker steel and smaller rivets you get the actual turn rate of 30 degrees a second. Note that the turn rates already given above are in this range. As you can see as the plane gets bigger all these values get worse and an an225 cannot complete a standard rate turn and do an air show. Adding weight reduces the turn rate. What I am saying is that turn rate is a cumulative function. Pulling infinite G for an instant is always possible, the only meaningful model is where the stress on the airframe accumulates rather than "you can always turn X g" like in a video game. In reality even a 2g turn is impossible for more than a few minutes. The FAA on its website says it handles 5000 flights per hour, this is a lie. Flight trackers show far less. Planes do not fly 200,000 hours. They fly about ten hours and turn a few seconds before being destroyed. It's not "lifecycle preservation", planes are a throwaway expendable equipment unlike the car you drive. There is no objection possible to this post because it just frames the problem. This is a conclusive end to the discussion, if you have any objection to specific parameters those are their own thread. If you say something like "the plane can sustain a 7g turn for a full minute" or can sustain repeated turns that add up to that, then you are wrong. That is categorically false given the rivet strength. Anything below that gets uncertain and "YouTube says this". G limit is not a fixed value per time, it's a damage function that accumulates. Not over a long time but within a single flight. The exact way this happens requires a extremely advanced engineering simulation that will never happen but something like "50% destruction odds after 1 minute of 7g" is totally accurate and extremely generous.

That maintenance documentation wouldn't be available. I am merely showing the possibility that it happened.

I am not satisfied with your argument and it seems to be circumstantial. I will allow you to have that point and end the discussion if that is all.

I did watch it. Please don't be obtuse. Are you reading the gauges or something? He does say "430 knots" when leveling out but nothing like saying that is what he was actually reporting as the current speed.

I don't see how you proved your point. But ok.

I don't know where your 430 knot number came from. Can you just show math?