Mistang

That doesn't help, it's still within the 7.5 limit Grumman gave.

That's 100 meters per second which took 15 seconds to turn a 20 ton aircraft. ke = mv2 with M constant because we are calculating G. V is 100/15 = 6. V2 = 36 m/s. Thats 4g. The turn you depicted is a four G turn as in your second video. Do you dispute this?

Finally an effort post, thank you. I don't actually have access to cite 1 and it seems to be out of stock. However I will reproduce your g limit graph here in the attachments. It clearly says a 7.5g limit and I don't see the 9g claim supported anywhere, in any documentation. In fact the information you cited directly refuted your own claim. Your Snort citation clearly says that he lost an engine (you didn't mention that) and it was a hard turn for the aircraft. Nothing like a "routine" event. Your other sources are either brief or give similar comments. Again you are directly refuting your own point and proving a 10g turn will destroy the aircraft. You also didn't mention the error in the G gauges. If you wish I can cite error ranges on modern gauges, and the tomcat error would be worse. The Grumman number of 7.5 G is the actual number and anything else can be considered erroneous. Why would you trust YouTube over technical documentation, especially when these are casual interviews that say the plane was destroyed anyway? You also avoided the central point, which is the amount of time. In video games the turn rate is a fixed amount and you pull it forever. In reality these are obviously brief episodes and none of your examples were more than a second. So using your 8.5 mention and a 10% error that's actually what Grumman gave, and your remaining citations all destroyed the aircraft in less than a second. So everything you cited directly proves my point and refutes your own. The tomcat is a 6g plane and can pull more for a fraction of a second, and snodgrass and other tomcat pilots confirm the plane is destroyed beyond that. This is all in your own citations, and directly refuted your own point, you just did not read your citations. EDIT by Bignewy - removed picture as it was a document newer than 1980

I'd like to see any claims you have. One person cited a video to deny my claim that the tomcat is a 6g plane and can pull more for a fraction of a second. Their video directly refuted their own point and proved mine. Id love you to cite any evidence for your claim that the tomcat can pull more than 6g and I guarantee any evidence you find will only prove my point.

For one thing g gauges have error. So 11g is really 10g. When they pulled that in 1981, that was the plane hultgren died on. It's not lifecycle preservation limiting it to 6g, that's all it can do. A tomcat exploded in 1995 doing a 6g climb. It might pull 10g for an instant an destroy the plane. 9g is maybe the instantaneous turn it could use without exploding. In terms of what it could sustain for a few seconds you're looking at 6 or 7g. Even then the tomcat had glove vanes upgraded to 7.5g. The blue angels do not exceed 7g at any point in their shows. Those are stripped down, agile planes. A tomcat would never do that. And you need evidence, here it is. https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/f-14-tomcat-explode-after-sonic-boom-cause-engine-exploded-due-to-compression-failure/334/ I'd like to see any claims you have. One person cited a video to deny my claim that the tomcat is a 6g plane and can pull more for a fraction of a second. Their video directly refuted their own point and proved mine. Id love you to cite any evidence for your claim that the tomcat can pull more than 6g and I guarantee any evidence you find will only prove my point.

No, this is wrong, aircraft routinely develop cracks while operating within parameters and this is the entire reason for preflight checks. If it cracks enough pieces fall off. This is a incremental process, it's not tensile strength which is a lot higher. China Airlines flight 006 experienced vertical load factors of up to 5.1 g on 19 February 1985.

That doesn't help. It still fails. Game is physically impossible.

If it wasn't for your bodies healing capacity, yes.

Obviously this question will be deleted. The Young's modulus of steel is around 400gpa. Therefore an hour flight could only put around 400 gj per square meter on the aircraft. During a turn the aircraft is putting its weight on the wing root. So this comes out to around 40 million tons per square meter over the flight or 10,000 tons per second. The aircraft might also be accelerating a few times gravity so the effective weight comes out to a thousand tons. So the maximum possible weight for structural reasons is around the size of an an225 and anything else is physically impossible. And of course this is an absurd example, the tolerances in fighter jets are a few mm and they die earlier. This is why the flight model on stuff like the tomcat is fake and in real life it literally explodes beyond 6g. https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/f-14-tomcat-explode-after-sonic-boom-cause-engine-exploded-due-to-compression-failure/334/https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/f-14-tomcat-explode-after-sonic-boom-cause-engine-exploded-due-to-compression-failure/334/

Your insults are weak, you didn't even find a BVR helicopter kill. Your insults are pretty weak too, scientific papers are "just a feeling". What does it take to get banned here?

Honestly this thread just proves the expertise of Swedish video game pilots who didn't know the phantom had titanium.

Vortex rings are like bird strikes, they're just a killer event that isn't helpful to simulate. wingtip vortex is stupid in a lot of cases.

I'm not going to bother with everything you asked because I'm lazy. Also DCS should just publish the graphs it uses so I don't have to be Francis Bacon. anyway Delta wings have half the lift at 10-20 AOA. at 40 AOA they have far more lift but who does a turn like that? That shouldn't matter that much and I doubt dcs has a full vortex simulation given that would make them a billionaire.

lee1990.pdf

I can get you the full. Hold on

Yes here again https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/appliedmechanicsreviews/article-abstract/43/9/209/399157/Lift-Force-of-Delta-Wings?redirectedFrom=PDF Im not going to a full Navier stokes but I will show the mathematical reason.

It's the paper I posted and referenced multiple times. I'll get the rest.

Id love to see a 6g herc. The lancer has terrible t/w and wing loading compared to any fighter. I actually did.

You always you words like that. "It's better because it's better".

Hmm, so does phantom and a lot of navy aircraft.

Sure. Now, the F 4 was known to crack at 11g. The cat was about a third heavier. What was special about the cat which gave it g tolerance? It doesn't scale to other aircraft at all.

I'm guessing you mean CADC or something is keeping the G recorded or there is something in the gauge itself. Either way accelerometers are really complicated and unreliable. This is why drones require GPS to even remain stable and you can try turning off GPS and get garbage behavior. As in consumer Walmart drones you can buy. Maybe now they have laser gyros or something that are better in military stuff.

He even disagrees with the tf30 claims from the posters here, he basically said it was fine and the only stalls were ones he got himself into.

Ah thank you. Im more interested in how he got such a precise g measurement when the gauge goes to ten. The gauge broke? Makes sense. He also implies the f 16 has more G. And only 9g. and doenst mention the Doppler invisible mi 24/Cessna hordes

Here come the invisible mi 24 hordes to defeat CVBG They usually have AWACS which does proper signal processing and not Doppler. Also I don't think there was ever a BVR helicopter kill (the UH 60 incident was WVR)