G limits and Dogfighting

[Eagle7907]

So this topic came up on Discord and I learned something new about this aircraft yet I’m blown away about this limitation.  According to documents, the F-14 is limited to 6.5Gs.  My question is how in the heck do you know you don’t exceed this limitation while dogfighting?  IRL, was this limitation ever complied?  If so, how in a close quarters fight?  I’ve been taught “lose sight, lose fight” and watching a G meter will easily cause this as an issue.

 

Also, does the AI comply with this limit as well?

[Sideburns]

Any source for the limit, was this a peacetime thing? Given the low corner speed of the F14 the G-limit is less of a concern no?

[Quid]

20 minutes ago, Sideburns said:

Any source for the limit, was this a peacetime thing? Given the low corner speed of the F14 the G-limit is less of a concern no?

 

Literally every published NATOPS dating back to at least 1980.  Here's the best part: it's the aircraft's symmetrical "g" limit out to just shy of 50,000lbs.  If you're above that, it starts getting lower.  At about 53,200 it's 6.0g.  If you're right off the cat with some heavy stores hanging out at 68,000lbs, it's only 4.75g.  Asymmetrical (rolling) is even lower, starting at 5.24g out to about 50,000lbs and dropping as low as 3.8g at 68,000.  

 

The thing is, every single fighter is like this.  The F/A-18, F-16, etc., are no different (in fact, the F/A-18's limits at 52,000lbs roughly match the F-14's at 68,000).  They all have a given g-limit for the basic aircraft to a certain weight, then it starts dropping, its asymmetrical g-limit is always lower, and this doesn't even consider the stores limits or takeoff/landing configuration limits; you'll hear aircrews say things like "overstress the pod" or "overstress the bomb" because they exceeded the limit of the targeting pod or the bomb or the missile, etc.  DCS players are now becoming all too familiar with overstressing the flaps of the F-14 since they've had their damage model updated.

 

The F-14 and "g" is always long argued because different numbers exist from different times.  The original design specification was 7.5g, which is why when you read early books and programmatic documents on the F-14 you always see a "7.5g design limit" - wings sweep at 4 degrees per second at 7.5g, the glove vanes allow 7.5g maneuvering at 2.0M, etc.  Grumman themselves brought the structural test aircraft "safely to +9.0g and -5.5g," and "8.0g even with 6x AIM-54s, 2x AIM-9s and 2x tanks."  Then there's all the stories of Tomcats taking turns at ridiculous "g" and not breaking (at least immediately) so there is a tendency in DCS to throw out any g-limit regardless.

 

This doesn't change the fact that 6.5g was the settled upon "official" limit of the aircraft, and only to its original combat weight before it gained more than 4,000lbs from airframe changes, TF-30 engine sheaths, etc. between 1972 and 1984.

[Buzzles]

Fwiw, I believe it actually hit the fleet with a 7.5g limit, and was used that way for a while before the 6.5g limit was introduced. Happy to be corrected on that though.
There's also annecdotes from Grumman testers saying they took it over 10g on occasion, and some static testing documentation showing the wing box survived 10.5g and the engine mounts broke first (at 10.5g). Obviously that's not a lot to go on and Victory205 recently posted he accidently took it to just over 8g and broke a couple of things, so ymmv.

 

As for OP's actual question: Joystick curves and practice tbh.

 

A decent curve on your pitch axis will help stop you from yanking it and spiking too hard, but you've still just got to be careful. After a while you'll get the hang of it.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Buzzles

[Sideburns]

31 minutes ago, Quid said:

 

Literally every published NATOPS dating back to at least 1980.  Here's the best part: it's the aircraft's symmetrical "g" limit out to just shy of 50,000lbs.  If you're above that, it starts getting lower.  At about 53,200 it's 6.0g.  If you're right off the cat with some heavy stores hanging out at 68,000lbs, it's only 4.75g.  Asymmetrical (rolling) is even lower, starting at 5.24g out to about 50,000lbs and dropping as low as 3.8g at 68,000.....

 

 

Cheers for the detailed response, wasn't disagreeing with that limit just curious where he had picked it up from. Suspect the original point today was made on the ED Discord. I tend not to go too far with the G's myself being a survivor of the weak wings patches and also that INS.

[Sideburns]

1 hour ago, Eagle7907 said:

So this topic came up on Discord and I learned something new about this aircraft yet I’m blown away about this limitation.  According to documents, the F-14 is limited to 6.5Gs.  My question is how in the heck do you know you don’t exceed this limitation while dogfighting?  IRL, was this limitation ever complied?  If so, how in a close quarters fight?  I’ve been taught “lose sight, lose fight” and watching a G meter will easily cause this as an issue.

 

Also, does the AI comply with this limit as well?

 

Sorry, in response to your original query the pilot does start heavy breathing at around 4-5g usually so that can be a helpful hint. Pilots indicated they did  go over this IRL "accidently", you're probably fine up to 8-9g unless you want to follow strict realism NATOPS.

[Quid]

12 minutes ago, Buzzles said:

Fwiw, I believe it actually hit the fleet with a 7.5g limit, and was used that way for a while before the 6.5g limit was introduced. Happy to be corrected on that though.
There's also annecdotes from Grumman testers saying they took it over 10g on occasion, and some static testing documentation showing the wing box survived 10.5g and the engine mounts broke first (at 10.5g). Obviously that's not a lot to go on and Victory205 recently posted he accidently took it to just over 8g and broke a couple of things, so ymmv.

 

As for OP's actual question: Joystick curves and practice tbh.

 

A decent curve on your pitch axis will help stop you from yanking it and spiking too hard, but you've still just got to be careful. After a while you'll get the hang of it.

 

WRT not massively overstressing the jet, I concur with Buzzles here - practice above all!  Depending on your stick, you may or may not benefit from curves; I've got no curve on mine, but I'm running a VKB F-14CG and I've got heavy springs on both axes.  Combined with what the plane "tells" me from its audible and visual shaking (I sometimes compare it to Principal McVicker from Beavis & Butthead), and the heavy breathing as described by Sideburns, I have an idea of where I'm at and roughly how much "g" I've got on the jet based on how far back I'm pulling and how much resistance the springs are giving me.  Of course, it doesn't always work and in virtual combat, I will overstress the jet under certain circumstances and I can usually tell that I have (those, "aaaand the accelerometer's probably pegged right now" moments).  

 

17 minutes ago, Sideburns said:

 

Sorry, in response to your original query the pilot does start heavy breathing at around 4-5g usually so that can be a helpful hint. Pilots indicated they did  go over this IRL "accidently", you're probably fine up to 8-9g unless you want to follow strict realism NATOPS.

 

I've found this true as well.  Above 9, you're pretty much rolling the dice as to whether or not a system will break.  Yes, sometimes IRL the plane came back pristine with a 12.2g yank, other times parts broke at a little over 8g (examples of both can be found in these forums).  In DCS, I've had the gyros break at just shy of 9 during a defensive break, and other times I've pegged the accelerometer and reviewed the TacView and everything held together in a 12g defensive yank.  If you keep it in the region of 8-9g at absolute maximum (I try to go no more than 7.5g maximum if I can help it) the plane's systems will typically work fine.

 

[Eagle7907]

34 minutes ago, Sideburns said:

 

Cheers for the detailed response, wasn't disagreeing with that limit just curious where he had picked it up from. Suspect the original point today was made on the ED Discord. I tend not to go too far with the G's myself being a survivor of the weak wings patches and also that INS.

I asked the question, and all I got was use the G-meter.  That’s pretty cut and dry if you ask me, but I was hoping to get an answer from someone who actually flew it and see if it was indeed a) real and complied, b) the technique taught, and if this was indeed something seriously limited then is our opponents (AI) just as limited by their own structural limits and is the damage simulated.

[Uxi]

I was doing one of the IA dogfights and all my attitude indicators (HUD, VDI, and standby) were broken when I was done and had to land with it showing at almost 45 degrees.  Is there any way to do know if over G caused it?  I am inclined to first thing bugs unfortunately.  I thought the hypoxia from not turning on my oxygen (since it's not listed in the assisted startup walkthrough) was a graphics glitch, for example.  

[Quid]

39 minutes ago, Eagle7907 said:

I asked the question, and all I got was use the G-meter.  That’s pretty cut and dry if you ask me, but I was hoping to get an answer from someone who actually flew it and see if it was indeed a) real and complied, b) the technique taught, and if this was indeed something seriously limited then is our opponents (AI) just as limited by their own structural limits and is the damage simulated.

If you're waiting for a response from someone who actually flew it, I think the only Tomcat pilot here is Victory205, so if he chimes in, you'll get it from a SME.  The thing someone like him had in the real jet was the actual "g" forces he had to fight against.  That's something we in the virtual world do not have, and cannot be used as an indicator.  Within the virtual world, Buzzles, Sideburns and I all provided ways in which the plane communicates to you: shaking (aural and visual feedback), heavy breathing, blackening of the screen, as well as recommendations for curves or adjusted springs (if available) and practice.  If you want to, you can also turn on your aircraft's statistics display at the bottom of the screen if you don't want to look back into the cockpit while you get the feel of the jet, so you can see live how much "g" you're putting on at a given stick pull, then start building muscle memory.  The plane doesn't have JHMCS or a "g" readout on the HUD, so the only way you will know is by the jet's cues, looking at the accelerometer, or by turning on the bar at the bottom.

 

As to your other questions, apart from Victory205, plenty has been said by Tomcat aircrews regarding "g" and how much the limits were complied with.  The limits were absolutely real, otherwise they wouldn't be in the aircraft's operating manuals.  But, compliance is another question; usually in immediate life-threatening situations, it wasn't.  "Music" pulled over 11g to avoid the debris of "his" Fitter when he shot it down so that he wouldn't lose the aircraft by FOD-ing the engine with Fitter parts, but the initial turn at the merge was about 7g.  "Snort" did about 10g to defend against a SAM, in the process stalling an engine and departing the jet.  "Faceshot" did a beyond-9g defensive break (9.5?) when he was fired upon by a MANPADS while he was in VF-32 after a strafing run to evade the missile.  If it is more likely that the plane won't fly again by following the limits, it might be better not to.

 

There are examples of peacetime when the limits weren't adhered to strictly, but everyone who talks about this knows they were not supposed to pull what they did. "Hoser," "Rookie" and "Okie" all did beyond 12g pulls in peacetime BFM.  In 1976 another Tomcat driver did back-to-back 8.5g turns against an aggressor A-4 as a student and was simply marked above average for aggressiveness.  The thing is, in either war or peacetime when you overstress the jet, you give maintenance and mission planners problems.  The jet is unavailable until it can be inspected and cleared for flight.  If systems did break, they need to be replaced.  If you bent the jet, it might be a crane-off at the end of the cruise, unavailable for operations entirely.  Just because it happened doesn't mean it was something that was done commonly, and the training standard/techniques would have been to the g-limit of the aircraft in most cases. 

 

As to the AI, I have no idea, but I've never seen the AI break a jet that wasn't already damaged so I'd guess it probably doesn't get damaged if it overshoots the limits.

[Eagle7907]

11 minutes ago, Quid said:

If you're waiting for a response from someone who actually flew it, I think the only Tomcat pilot here is Victory205, so if he chimes in, you'll get it from a SME.  The thing someone like him had in the real jet was the actual "g" forces he had to fight against.  That's something we in the virtual world do not have, and cannot be used as an indicator.  Within the virtual world, Buzzles, Sideburns and I all provided ways in which the plane communicates to you: shaking (aural and visual feedback), heavy breathing, blackening of the screen, as well as recommendations for curves or adjusted springs (if available) and practice.  If you want to, you can also turn on your aircraft's statistics display at the bottom of the screen if you don't want to look back into the cockpit while you get the feel of the jet, so you can see live how much "g" you're putting on at a given stick pull, then start building muscle memory.  The plane doesn't have JHMCS or a "g" readout on the HUD, so the only way you will know is by the jet's cues, looking at the accelerometer, or by turning on the bar at the bottom.

 

As to your other questions, apart from Victory205, plenty has been said by Tomcat aircrews regarding "g" and how much the limits were complied with.  The limits were absolutely real, otherwise they wouldn't be in the aircraft's operating manuals.  But, compliance is another question; usually in immediate life-threatening situations, it wasn't.  "Music" pulled over 11g to avoid the debris of "his" Fitter when he shot it down so that he wouldn't lose the aircraft by FOD-ing the engine with Fitter parts, but the initial turn at the merge was about 7g.  "Snort" did about 10g to defend against a SAM, in the process stalling an engine and departing the jet.  "Faceshot" did a beyond-9g defensive break (9.5?) when he was fired upon by a MANPADS while he was in VF-32 after a strafing run to evade the missile.  If it is more likely that the plane won't fly again by following the limits, it might be better not to.

 

There are examples of peacetime when the limits weren't adhered to strictly, but everyone who talks about this knows they were not supposed to pull what they did. "Hoser," "Rookie" and "Okie" all did beyond 12g pulls in peacetime BFM.  In 1976 another Tomcat driver did back-to-back 8.5g turns against an aggressor A-4 as a student and was simply marked above average for aggressiveness.  The thing is, in either war or peacetime when you overstress the jet, you give maintenance and mission planners problems.  The jet is unavailable until it can be inspected and cleared for flight.  If systems did break, they need to be replaced.  If you bent the jet, it might be a crane-off at the end of the cruise, unavailable for operations entirely.  Just because it happened doesn't mean it was something that was done commonly, and the training standard/techniques would have been to the g-limit of the aircraft in most cases. 

 

As to the AI, I have no idea, but I've never seen the AI break a jet that wasn't already damaged so I'd guess it probably doesn't get damaged if it overshoots the limits.

Ah, very good.  This is what I was hoping to get.  As to the technique IRL is yet to be determined, but this information does support the general understanding of it all.  Thanks.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Eagle7907

[Baz000]

“At this point, Gypsy 204′s pilot, Hermon C. “Munster” Cook III, has the Libyan MiG-23 lined up perfectly in his HUD.  Everything is right on and he is within 1.5 miles of the MiG, directly behind it.  Incredibly, the pilots hears no missile tone from the AIM-9M Sidewinder missile.  Moments later, Cook realizes that he simply has the volume turned down to the stops.  Turning up the knob, he is greeted by the perfect growling tone of the missile, which is tracking the target perfectly.

As for the Libyans, they seem unable to keep up with the rapidly changing air combat.  Gypsy 204 did an early break and then reversed to come in behind the Libyan MiG, pulling a continuous 5Gs in the maneuver.  Once too close for radar-based weapons-systems, Gypsy 204′s pilot selected heat-seeking missiles, which are fired from up front and the RIO, Leo F. Enright, transitioned to a different role in the fight, keeping his eyes open and tracking the overall combat picture and planning for the egress afterward, thus freeing up the pilot to concentrate on the attack.

The Libyan MiG pilot, who should have pulled out sharply into a tightly turning dogfight, is tentative and does not maneuver effectively.  It would appear that while the GCI instructions had been perfect and had countered the F-14s in their earlier positioning, now that the combat is engaged, the Libyans lack the individual pilot initiative to fight “head-to-head” in a turning fight“

Source: http://fly.historicwings.com/2013/01/splash-two-migs/

Apparently in actual combat, 5 G turn to position them for a sidewinder shot vs MiG-23... Seems the 7.5 G plus was not needed for long in that particular engagement tho it may have been used for the initial break turn prior to the sustained 5G reversal.

You guys put way too much emphasis on how many G a plane can pull, what matters is its sustained and instantaneous turn rate in relation to its radius. The goal is for to pilot to make the tightest, quickest turn the plane can do. Think instantaneous (energy depleting) vs sustained (energy retaining). That speed to initiate such a turn is called corner speed.

The pilots are aware of the EM charts for their planes in different configurations and altitudes and at the most basic level they know they need to do entry speed of X mach or IAS into their turn, if sustained they know they need to reach Y Gee and hold... If instantaneous they know its a max G turn.

They know based on the entry parameters the turn should end up being A radius and B turn rate in degrees per second. The goal once again being to complete a turn at the smallest sized radius (to turn inside the turn circle of an adversary) in the fastest turn rate (to move your nose faster than your opponent to enter a firing solution)

Oh, one more point... In combat or when expecting entry into a combat environment the aircraft generally will accelerate from their cruising speed to a tactical speed at a minimum at corner speed or even above corner speed... This allows them to perform at least 1 maximum performance turn to defend against an attack on them from various threats such as SAM missiles for example. This is important when needing to defend against incoming missiles in particular or an unseen bandit running a stern intercept.

You always want to be thinking ahead and be ahead of the curveball. If you start off behind the curve, you already lost the entry to the fight and got off to a bad start.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Baz000
Added source

[Quid]

1 hour ago, Baz000 said:

“At this point, Gypsy 204′s pilot, Hermon C. “Munster” Cook III, has the Libyan MiG-23 lined up perfectly in his HUD.  Everything is right on and he is within 1.5 miles of the MiG, directly behind it.  Incredibly, the pilots hears no missile tone from the AIM-9M Sidewinder missile.  Moments later, Cook realizes that he simply has the volume turned down to the stops.  Turning up the knob, he is greeted by the perfect growling tone of the missile, which is tracking the target perfectly.

As for the Libyans, they seem unable to keep up with the rapidly changing air combat.  Gypsy 204 did an early break and then reversed to come in behind the Libyan MiG, pulling a continuous 5Gs in the maneuver.  Once too close for radar-based weapons-systems, Gypsy 204′s pilot selected heat-seeking missiles, which are fired from up front and the RIO, Leo F. Enright, transitioned to a different role in the fight, keeping his eyes open and tracking the overall combat picture and planning for the egress afterward, thus freeing up the pilot to concentrate on the attack.

The Libyan MiG pilot, who should have pulled out sharply into a tightly turning dogfight, is tentative and does not maneuver effectively.  It would appear that while the GCI instructions had been perfect and had countered the F-14s in their earlier positioning, now that the combat is engaged, the Libyans lack the individual pilot initiative to fight “head-to-head” in a turning fight“

 

Apparently in actual combat, 5 G turn to position them for a sidewinder shot vs MiG-23... Seems the 7.5 G plus was not needed for long in that particular engagement tho it may have been used for the initial break turn prior to the sustained 5G reversal.

You guys put way too much emphasis on how many G a plane can pull, what matters is its sustained and instantaneous turn rate in relation to its radius. The goal is for to pilot to make the tightest, quickest turn the plane can do. Think instantaneous (energy depleting) vs sustained (energy retaining). That speed to initiate such a turn is called corner speed.

The pilots are aware of the EM charts for their planes in different configurations and altitudes and at the most basic level they know they need to do entry speed of X mach or IAS into their turn, if sustained they know they need to reach Y Gee and hold... If instantaneous they know its a max G turn.

They know based on the entry parameters the turn should end up being A radius and B turn rate in degrees per second. The goal once again being to complete a turn at the smallest sized radius (to turn inside the turn circle of an adversary) in the fastest turn rate (to move your nose faster than your opponent to enter a firing solution)

Oh, one more point... In combat or when expecting entry into a combat environment the aircraft generally will accelerate from their cruising speed to a tactical speed at a minimum at corner speed or even above corner speed... This allows them to perform at least 1 maximum performance turn to defend against an attack on them from various threats such as SAM missiles for example. This is important when needing to defend against incoming missiles in particular or an unseen bandit running a stern intercept.

You always want to be thinking ahead and be ahead of the curveball. If you start off behind the curve, you already lost the entry to the fight and got off to a bad start.

 

Verily, but OP's question was specifically about g-limits (and how to tell you're not overshooting them without looking down into the cockpit), if they were followed/complied with, how closely, and if the AI follows them.  Hence all the talk about "g", and not specifically about rate/radius, Ps, sustained/instantaneous turn rates, etc.

[Hummingbird]

A fact many miss is that the F-14 was designed with the same ultimate load limit as the F-15, the former initially being a 7.5 G rated plane and the latter a 7.33 G rated plane. With the introduction of OWS the F-15's limit was raised to 9 G.  Meanwhile F-14 orders were cut short, and hence every aircraft had to last a lot longer and a "peace time limit" of 6.5 G's was put in place. In service however the aircraft routinely went over 7.5 G's, and sometimes extreme G's of 11 to 12.5 were recorded WITHOUT any damage to the airframe (or lost engines). Infact the F-14 is possibly one of the structurally strongest built US fighters ever, and atleast at the time the most structurally tested ever involving a very large amount of testing aircraft. 

 

Always worth a watch:

 

[Eagle7907]

34 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

A fact many miss is that the F-14 was designed with the same ultimate load limit as the F-15, the former initially being a 7.5 G rated plane and the latter a 7.33 G rated plane. With the introduction of OWS the F-15's limit was raised to 9 G.  Meanwhile F-14 orders were cut short, and hence every aircraft had to last a lot longer and a "peace time limit" of 6.5 G's was put in place. In service however the aircraft routinely went over 7.5 G's, and sometimes extreme G's of 11 to 12.5 were recorded WITHOUT any damage to the airframe (or lost engines). Infact the F-14 is possibly one of the structurally strongest built US fighters ever, and atleast at the time the most structurally tested ever involving a very large amount of testing aircraft. 

 

Always worth a watch:

 

I have actually watched this before once.  It was very informative about the engineering of the jet and how it came to fruition.  So when you say routinely went over 7.5G's, how often would you say that happened?  Did maintenance routinely pulled a hull for inspection after a sortie?

[Wizard_03]

30 minutes ago, Eagle7907 said:

I have actually watched this before once.  It was very informative about the engineering of the jet and how it came to fruition.  So when you say routinely went over 7.5G's, how often would you say that happened?  Did maintenance routinely pulled a hull for inspection after a sortie?

 

That's the real question. Maybe Victory can chime in, because the problem is most "sources" ONLY talk about instances of over G and NOT day to day flight operations or ACM practice with regard to the limits. I would be surprised if Routine means more then 1/10 flights for any given aircraft but I have no idea TBH.

[Victory205]

Duplicate

Edited December 2, 2020 by Victory205

[Victory205]

2 hours ago, Baz000 said:

“At this point, Gypsy 204′s pilot, Hermon C. “Munster” Cook III, has the Libyan MiG-23 lined up perfectly in his HUD.  Everything is right on and he is within 1.5 miles of the MiG, directly behind it.  Incredibly, the pilots hears no missile tone from the AIM-9M Sidewinder missile.  Moments later, Cook realizes that he simply has the volume turned down to the stops.  Turning up the knob, he is greeted by the perfect growling tone of the missile, which is tracking the target perfectly.

As for the Libyans, they seem unable to keep up with the rapidly changing air combat.  Gypsy 204 did an early break and then reversed to come in behind the Libyan MiG, pulling a continuous 5Gs in the maneuver.  Once too close for radar-based weapons-systems, Gypsy 204′s pilot selected heat-seeking missiles, which are fired from up front and the RIO, Leo F. Enright, transitioned to a different role in the fight, keeping his eyes open and tracking the overall combat picture and planning for the egress afterward, thus freeing up the pilot to concentrate on the attack.

The Libyan MiG pilot, who should have pulled out sharply into a tightly turning dogfight, is tentative and does not maneuver effectively.  It would appear that while the GCI instructions had been perfect and had countered the F-14s in their earlier positioning, now that the combat is engaged, the Libyans lack the individual pilot initiative to fight “head-to-head” in a turning fight“

I've known Hermon Cook for over 30 years. We lived next to each other in Virginia Beach, and were colleagues for the past three decades. He was in AC 202, in fact 204 wasn't in the flight. Hermon also wasn't flying with Leo Enright, wasn't the flight lead, and didn't get his kill with a sidewinder. In fact, he was calm, competent and quietly took care of business in all respects. Interestingly, Hermon received "Fight Pilot of the Year" honors as the junior LT wingman. 

 

Joe Connelly's aircraft, AC207, the flight lead that day, was eventually remanufactured into an F14D. 

 

Seat of the pants pretty much negates needing to ever look at the G meter. Different in the sim, obviously. 

 

F14's had "counting accelerometers" in the wheel well that provided a historical record of how many G's were pulled during the flight. IIRC, each numerical read out clicked over each time the specific G threshold for that indicator had been exceeded. There was no hiding from an over G.

[Hummingbird]

37 minutes ago, Eagle7907 said:

I have actually watched this before once.  It was very informative about the engineering of the jet and how it came to fruition.  So when you say routinely went over 7.5G's, how often would you say that happened?  Did maintenance routinely pulled a hull for inspection after a sortie?

 

Who knows the exact number, but pilots such as Okie have said it time and again, they definitely didn't have any quarrels about taking the jet past 7.5 G's if it was needed, and they didn't need to worry either as the aircraft was structurally sound to way beyond that limit. Being a particularly heavy Navy plane it was built incredibly strong, the wing box was basically unbreakable, often being the sole thing left intact in crashes where the rest of the airplane was totally obliterated.

 

That said, I'm fairly convinced that unless they were in a combat situation (or some particular competitive mock BFM fight) most pilots would do their best to adhere to the 6.5 G peace time limit, or atleast not cross it by too much. Don't want to piss off your maintenance crew every other sortie

 

[Baz000]

I intended no insult, seems the source article I used was not 110% accurate which is not uncommon for the internet. But considering I didn't craft that article, it is no fault of my own but I do take responsibility for my abbreviated internet search time and analysis. So I apologize for the dissemination of that inaccurate information.

 

Oh, I see I forgot to include the URL link when I posted my comment which led to the belief that it was something I had crafted.

Source:

http://fly.historicwings.com/2013/01/splash-two-migs/

 

Yes I understand the OP post, my point is too often i'm seeing this utter nonsense debate about pulling G constantly. If a plane was designed to make the quickest, tightest turn with the least amount of G load on the pilot and plane than an adversary. That is the chariot to ride into combat, yes it is an oversimplification but the bottom line is G hurts, fatigues pilot and machine, although pilot more so.

 

It was 7.5 G for the F-14 originally, in order to extend the lifespan of the plane the Navy lowered it for training and peacetime to 6.5 G.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Baz000

[Eagle7907]

Okay, thanks to all who have replied.  I have a good grasp to the nature of the subject and facts provided.  Not that I dislike the Tomcat now after learning this, but I was a bit shocked that it had such a low G tolerance for something so fast and sturdy.  Learning every day.

[Wizard_03]

10 hours ago, Eagle7907 said:

Okay, thanks to all who have replied.  I have a good grasp to the nature of the subject and facts provided.  Not that I dislike the Tomcat now after learning this, but I was a bit shocked that it had such a low G tolerance for something so fast and sturdy.  Learning every day.

I watched a documentary on the F-35 a while ago and for the life of me can't find it. But one of the Navy reps mentioned that the F-35C is also rated/limited to 7.5 Just like the (Bug and Cat) they asked him why not 9 like the A model and he said if they had wanted that, it was possible in the JSF program but the added weight to the airframe was, in their minds, not worth it. Sustatined High AOA control at slow speed and solid acceleration is good enough as far as they're concerned. 

 

Obviously take that with a grain of salt but it was interesting to me. High G loading has definite merit in gun fights where radius is king but in the world of HOBS I don't think it's as important as it once was in regards to BFM. ITR is the bigger question now, when the missile employment envelope pretty much negates any sort of sustatined situation. And 7.5 is more then enough for that kind of quick energy dump for a high aspect shot opportunity.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Wizard_03

[Victory205]

The F14 suffered from bulkhead cracks (I should know the number of the specific bulkhead station, but can’t recall at the moment) and fuselage delamination. Rolling G, because of the design geometry, torqued the fuselage. The bandaid answer was a “staple” in the bottom of the fuselage, designed to reduce the torquing moments. It actually stuck out into the airstream. I’ll see if I can find a photo somewhere, but the aircraft wasn’t invincible, and had structural issues due to metal fatigue caused by repeated stress. 

 

50,000 lbs was about 6-6500lbs of fuel in a shore based, training configuration.

[FWind]

From some reports.

[Eagle7907]

Oh thanks guys! Wow. Very nice.

So after this discussion, I was curious how “difficult” it would be to knife fight trying my best to not be so sporty in the turns. It seems to be somewhat easy to stay below 6.5. However for situations where you have stores or a higher GW with a lower tolerance, it gets....interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro