G limit

IIRC the 7 deg/sec forward sweep was at 7 or 7.5 G's, and I don't believe the sweep mechanism actually had a realistically reachable positive G limit where it just didn't function anymore. The sweep rate seems to have simply slowed gradually from a max of ~18 deg/sec to one of ~7 deg/sec at a positive G of 7 or 7.5. Wether it slowed any further above 7 or 7.5 G's I don't know, AFAIK 7 deg/sec is simply mentioned as the minimum sweep rate.

However, and as I forgot to mention in my other post, the F-14's sweep system did halt at any negative G above -3 IIRC.

IIRC？？

IIRC？？

IIRC usually means, "If I recall correctly."

IIRC usually means, "If I recall correctly."

Not something of upgrade？？

the attachment is the only reference I had found... I could not find anything solid in numbers for under load performance.

also....

Not something of upgrade？？

Sorry, I do not understand your question. The letters IIRC are just text shorthand as far as I know given the forum context.

Quote

 

"There was never any doubt about the wing sweep not being air speed/mach dependent, but load dependent. "

 

Sorry being a bit of a pedant and I have had a couple of glasses of wine, but I think you have an extra "not" in the sentence. Wing sweep is a function of speed / Mach like the Tornado and the F111, ( the two aircraft I am familiar with , flying formation with a B1 doesn't count).

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Damn it Jim, i'm a doctor, not an English major! :smartass:

:megalol:

But if we are being pedantic..... here is how the full statement should have went:

"I THINK there was a miscommunication between Windy and Lunaticfringe here. There was never any doubt about the wing sweep not being OR BEING air speed/mach dependent, but load dependent."

Alas, that's what you get for typing replies at 3+ AM in the morning and you have to be up for work by 6:30...... :doh:

also....

Yes and if I remember correctly (no manual at hand atm as I am abroad) -0.5 is for manual commands and -3 is for automatic.

the attachment is the only reference I had found... I could not find anything solid in numbers for under load performance.

Well that pretty much says it, 15 deg/sec max and a gradual decrease from there'on until the point where the forces are too strong for the system to operate. So if it's 7 deg/sec at 7 or 7.5 G's, then maybe the system entirely stalls at around 9 G's.

Well that pretty much says it, 15 deg/sec max and a gradual decrease from there'on until the point where the forces are too strong for the system to operate. So if it's 7 deg/sec at 7 or 7.5 G's, then maybe the system entirely stalls at around 9 G's.

14:00

7.5deg/sec at 1g 4deg/sec at 7.5g

The manual in 1975, I don't know if has some change in the after.

thanks for the references fellas

14:00

 

7.5deg/sec at 1g 4deg/sec at 7.5g

 

The manual in 1975, I don't know if has some change in the after.

[ATTACH]170327[/ATTACH]

4 deg/sec is mentioned nowhere?

4 deg/sec is mentioned nowhere?

yes it is, top of the chart at 13:50

4 deg/sec is mentioned nowhere?

Yeah, The video said 4 deg/sec in 13: 50. another in aero 25 F-14.

I also find it interesting that manual inputs result in higher deg/s then the auto mechanism. Maybe because they are less precise? I.E. setting the wings at certain "zones"?

I also find it interesting that manual inputs result in higher deg/s then the auto mechanism. Maybe because they are less precise? I.E. setting the wings at certain "zones"?

I would imagine it would possibly have something to do with the fact in manual you are probably after larger 'gross' movements - if you were happy with small precise ones you would leave it in auto. As a designer, if I was designing a manual version of an auto system such as this it would make sense to allow it to operate faster/differently to achieve a different outcome to the available auto mode.

Also, auto would be precisely following the 'curve' for wing angle, and as such unless the aircraft made sudden instant large changes then it can easily keep up with this 'curve' with a slower response in auto? Just a guess.

yes it is, top of the chart at 13:50

I was looking at the document you posted, not the video, thanks.

I would imagine it would possibly have something to do with the fact in manual you are probably after larger 'gross' movements - if you were happy with small precise ones you would leave it in auto. As a designer, if I was designing a manual version of an auto system such as this it would make sense to allow it to operate faster/differently to achieve a different outcome to the available auto mode.

Also, auto would be precisely following the 'curve' for wing angle, and as such unless the aircraft made sudden instant large changes then it can easily keep up with this 'curve' with a slower response in auto? Just a guess.

Makes sense i guess :thumbup:

Now the (slightly useless) question becomes at what G can you completely stall the sweep system? ;)

Probably unobtainable under normal conditions.

Now the (slightly useless) question becomes at what G can you completely stall the sweep system? ;)

The G that requires an aircraft inspection afterwards! :music_whistling: