Highway to physical reality

[Mistang]

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.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Mistang
Added reply

[AH_Solid_Snake]

Alternatively you can listen to the first few episodes of the F-14 Tomcast featuring many Pilots and RIOs from its service. One account from a test pilot said that in symmetrical G loading the F-14 is structurally unbreakable, only the twisting moment of adding roll could add limitations.

[Callsign JoNay]

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxrNMdwRwYZfF3OmAk74knJj3Vjr6vLem-

[Mistang]

2 hours ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

Alternatively you can listen to the first few episodes of the F-14 Tomcast featuring many Pilots and RIOs from its service. One account from a test pilot said that in symmetrical G loading the F-14 is structurally unbreakable, only the twisting moment of adding roll could add limitations.

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.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Mistang

[near_blind]

Here's a video where an F-14 doesn't explode while pulling 16Gs

 

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

 

[RustBelt]

Why is this your Windmill Don Quixote? Nobody here cares or even knows what the hell you’re in about.

In contemporary parlance “Sir, This is a Wendy’s.”

[NineLine]

Dear all, he is trying to post in a more relaxed manner, please do the same, and do resort to name calling and other such tactics, if his information is not correct feel free to correct him, and vise versa, but please do it in a respectful manner. Thanks!

[G.J.S]

The F-14 being “a 6G ‘plane” is a bit of a misnomer - it was Service limited to 6.5, as a life extension measure.
There is no hard limit - if the pilot needs to pull hard enough to pop rivets, he or she can.

Service limits - which in this thread seem to be quoted as ‘the word of god’ and thou shall not stray, are solely for life extension, or as a safety barrier should the airframe type have an issue arising from an accident, but the type cannot be grounded for operational reasons.

I’m very sure the F-14 can happily register G above 6.5 quite comfortably.

If you were flying on operations, and somewhere on ingress or egress you had a safety of crew issue (SAM inbound), would you only pull to the service limit? Or would you pull like your life depends on it? The aircraft can take a lot. Aircrew are very familiar with the types they fly, they know what limitations are in place, and the reasons for them. But limitations can be exceeded.

 

[Frosty2124]

8 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Dear all, he is trying to post in a more relaxed manner, please do the same, and do resort to name calling and other such tactics, if his information is not correct feel free to correct him, and vise versa, but please do it in a respectful manner. Thanks!

despite how respectfully he may articulate his question/statement/opinion, there is a history of him trolling on this forum, particularly around G-limits and particularly mentioning that he has been trying to get himself permabanned, comments on previous, now deleted posts indicate that this individual has been banned off other forums for doing exactly the same thing, we have tried previously to provide evidence and information to help him but it boiled down to him articulating a nonsensical argument about flying hours and the FAA is lying about the true number of flights leaving from KLAX. subsequent posts from him have seen him subsequently double down on his attempt to be banned. 

I am always happy to help a fellow enthusiast to learn new things, provided they are willing to listen. but the status quo currently shows that he is a troll.

[NineLine]

I have talked to him, and we are working through it. Contrary to common opinion we don't ban first and ask questions later, so he is making and effort, I only ask the same. Normally we dont discuss moderation, but in this case I am making an exception, so lets see where this goes, and if anyone does go off the rails, we will deal with it then, otherwise, discuss and be happy

4 minutes ago, Frosty2124 said:

despite how respectfully he may articulate his question/statement/opinion, there is a history of him trolling on this forum, particularly around G-limits and particularly mentioning that he has been trying to get himself permabanned, comments on previous, now deleted posts indicate that this individual has been banned off other forums for doing exactly the same thing, we have tried previously to provide evidence and information to help him but it boiled down to him articulating a nonsensical argument about flying hours and the FAA is lying about the true number of flights leaving from KLAX. subsequent posts from him have seen him subsequently double down on his attempt to be banned. 

I am always happy to help a fellow enthusiast to learn new things, provided they are willing to listen. but the status quo currently shows that he is a troll.

 

[Frosty2124]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I have talked to him, and we are working through it. Contrary to common opinion we don't ban first and ask questions later, so he is making and effort, I only ask the same. Normally we dont discuss moderation, but in this case I am making an exception, so lets see where this goes, and if anyone does go off the rails, we will deal with it then, otherwise, discuss and be happy

 

that's fair, i think it's unreasonable to expect people to just be banned without the application of due diligence, its good to see that you guys are happy to support and that people are open to engaging in dialogue. 

[RustBelt]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Dear all, he is trying to post in a more relaxed manner, please do the same, and do resort to name calling and other such tactics, if his information is not correct feel free to correct him, and vise versa, but please do it in a respectful manner. Thanks!

Then please translate for us, because he came in halfway through some conversation nobody was having.

[Quid]

This has been discussed on these forums plenty of times before.  At the risk of posting this only to get a snide and dismissive remark back, OP asked for some examples of the F-14's actual "g" capability in the real world (that it can pull more than 6g) while also providing a few non-sequiturs (e.g., Kara Hultgreen's death which was caused by impact with the ocean due to ejection as her aircraft rotated past the horizon due to a compressor stall induced by pilot error and not following the bold face while she was flying the same jet that pulled a 10.2g avoidance maneuver 13 years prior; and an F-14 which was destroyed due to an engine failure that led to an explosion and blaming it on a 6g pull).

So, apart from the fact that Grumman considered the aircraft's safe symmetrical operating envelope +9 to -5.5g, and +8g with 6x AIM-54, 2x AIM-9 and two tanks [1], that the original design requirement was +7.33g, but Grumman's performance design point was 7.5g, e.g., for wing sweep and glove-vane assisted "g" authority [2], that the ultimate symmetrical limit was considered +13g [3], there several examples of beyond 9g pulls by real-world F-14s that I can think of where the aircraft was completely undamaged after the fact.  Just a few examples of which I am aware:

+12.2g by "Hoser" Satrapa in a guns-D pull against "Hawk" Smith during ACEVAL/AIMVAL[4].  The way both "Hoser" and "Hawk" discussed the pull from either of their perspectives was that this was a last-ditch absolute max g pull to deny Hawk a gun shot, meaning Hoser was well above 6.5g for several seconds as he initiated the pull at 600 knots.  Hawk described the airplane becoming a vapor ball in the next-to-zero humidity of the TACTS range above Nellis, emphasizing how much "g" Hoser pulled to get away.  The plane was X-rayed and not a single thing was out of place, other than Tomcat RIO "Hill Billy" Hill's vertebrae - he was down for 3 days after the yank.
+12.5g by "Okie" Nance after an adjustment to the stick forces which he was apparently not briefed on [5]
+10.2g by "Music" Muczynski to avoid Su-22 FITTER wreckage [6]
+11g by "Jambo" Ray during a training event [7]
+10g by "Snort" Snodgrass in a real-world SAM defense during ODS [8]
+9.1g by "Faceshot" Consalvi in a real-world MANPADS SAM defense during OIF [9]
>9g by "Paco" Chierici who also stated that the maintainers didn't really care until you put on more than 9.5g for the F-14, and stated he was routinely at 8g in the F-14. [9]
10.1g max g recordings on a VF-32 F-14 SparrowHawk HUD on cruise films [10]
Repeated pulls to +8.5g by "Magic" Quist during training in the late 1970s [Tomcat-Sunset, source no longer available]

Anecdotally, "g" stories always come up with F-14 pilots and RIOs, and invariably they seem to get into the 8 to over 10 region.  Typically, if the pull is symmetrical, the plane comes out OK.  That said, I believe Victory205 mentioned an 8g pull that jammed a slat by someone.  There were a lot of discussions on Tomcat-Sunset back in the day on "g" and the F-14; at ACEVAL/AIMVAL, the going guidance was "whatever it takes;" over here:  

there is a statistical analysis of F-14 "g" pulls during ACEVAL/AIMVAL (only 31 hours of data were analyzed; the exercise comprised hundreds of sorties) going from -2.5 to +9.5; you will note that the plane exceeded 6.5g 91 times in those 31 hours (to include asymmetrically) and none exploded.  Even Hoser's jet (F-14A Block 90 BuNo 159827) wasn't retired until more than 20 years after the 12.2g "yank." So, there you have it.  The F-14 should not explode at 0.5g under its NATOPS limit.  The examples you provided were not related to overstress.  No F-14 ever ripped its wings off in real life, for that matter, let alone detonated because of an overstress.  I hope you find this educational and useful.

Cheers.

Sources:

[1] Ed. Lake, Jon, "F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfighter" (London, Aerospace Publishing, 1998), 78; Stevenson J.P., "F-14 Tomcat" (PA: TAB Aero, 1975), 53, 68.
[2] Lake "F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfighter," 66-68; Stevenson, "F-14 Tomcat," 59; Mike Ciminera, F-14A Design Evolution, "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsUCixAeZ0A" 19:10-19:25
[3] maxsin1972, "Top Gun pilot Capt Dale "Snort" Snodgrass Lectures At The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZ0Q6anxbo 45:35-46:00
[4] Tomcat-Sunset discussion, source no longer available, & Auten, Donald E, "Roger Ball!" (New York: iUniverse Star, 2006), 352-353.
[5] Keith Nance, Q&A with Keith "Okie" Nance, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKA3ITCZt9o
[6] The Museum of Flight, "The American Fighter Aces Association's F-14 Tomcat Panel Discussion," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f5pmrePuQw 45:39-46:10
[7] The Fighter Pilot Podcast, "TOPGUN Instructors React to 'Top Gun: Maverick'," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5tJA9pluxY 21:15-22:03
[8] maxsin1972, "Capt Dale "Snort" Snodgrass Lectures," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZ0Q6anxbo 44:30-45:26
[9] Fight's On Military Aviation Enthusiasts, "Speed And Angels (Unofficial) Reunion - Jay, Megan, Peyton & Paco talk about the F-14 Tomcat," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK4EP7Sbg1Q 1:05:50 - 1:06:45
[10] flysupertomcat1, "VF-32 Final Tomcat cruise video pt.1", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI73mzmfr2I 5:05-5:10

Edited August 30, 2022 by Quid
typo

[Mistang]

12 hours ago, Quid said:

This has been discussed on these forums plenty of times before.  At the risk of posting this only to get a snide and dismissive remark back, OP asked for some examples of the F-14's actual "g" capability in the real world (that it can pull more than 6g) while also providing a few non-sequiturs (e.g., Kara Hultgreen's death which was caused by impact with the ocean due to ejection as her aircraft rotated past the horizon due to a compressor stall induced by pilot error and not following the bold face while she was flying the same jet that pulled a 10.2g avoidance maneuver 13 years prior; and an F-14 which was destroyed due to an engine failure that led to an explosion and blaming it on a 6g pull).

So, apart from the fact that Grumman considered the aircraft's safe symmetrical operating envelope +9 to -5.5g, and +8g with 6x AIM-54, 2x AIM-9 and two tanks [1], that the original design requirement was +7.33g, but Grumman's performance design point was 7.5g, e.g., for wing sweep and glove-vane assisted "g" authority [2], that the ultimate symmetrical limit was considered +13g [3], there several examples of beyond 9g pulls by real-world F-14s that I can think of where the aircraft was completely undamaged after the fact.  Just a few examples of which I am aware:

+12.2g by "Hoser" Satrapa in a guns-D pull against "Hawk" Smith during ACEVAL/AIMVAL[4].  The way both "Hoser" and "Hawk" discussed the pull from either of their perspectives was that this was a last-ditch absolute max g pull to deny Hawk a gun shot, meaning Hoser was well above 6.5g for several seconds as he initiated the pull at 600 knots.  Hawk described the airplane becoming a vapor ball in the next-to-zero humidity of the TACTS range above Nellis, emphasizing how much "g" Hoser pulled to get away.  The plane was X-rayed and not a single thing was out of place, other than Tomcat RIO "Hill Billy" Hill's vertebrae - he was down for 3 days after the yank.
+12.5g by "Okie" Nance after an adjustment to the stick forces which he was apparently not briefed on [5]
+10.2g by "Music" Muczynski to avoid Su-22 FITTER wreckage [6]
+11g by "Jambo" Ray during a training event [7]
+10g by "Snort" Snodgrass in a real-world SAM defense during ODS [8]
+9.1g by "Faceshot" Consalvi in a real-world MANPADS SAM defense during OIF [9]
>9g by "Paco" Chierici who also stated that the maintainers didn't really care until you put on more than 9.5g for the F-14, and stated he was routinely at 8g in the F-14. [9]
10.1g max g recordings on a VF-32 F-14 SparrowHawk HUD on cruise films [10]
Repeated pulls to +8.5g by "Magic" Quist during training in the late 1970s [Tomcat-Sunset, source no longer available]

Anecdotally, "g" stories always come up with F-14 pilots and RIOs, and invariably they seem to get into the 8 to over 10 region.  Typically, if the pull is symmetrical, the plane comes out OK.  That said, I believe Victory205 mentioned an 8g pull that jammed a slat by someone.  There were a lot of discussions on Tomcat-Sunset back in the day on "g" and the F-14; at ACEVAL/AIMVAL, the going guidance was "whatever it takes;" over here:  

there is a statistical analysis of F-14 "g" pulls during ACEVAL/AIMVAL (only 31 hours of data were analyzed; the exercise comprised hundreds of sorties) going from -2.5 to +9.5; you will note that the plane exceeded 6.5g 91 times in those 31 hours (to include asymmetrically) and none exploded.  Even Hoser's jet (F-14A Block 90 BuNo 159827) wasn't retired until more than 20 years after the 12.2g "yank." So, there you have it.  The F-14 should not explode at 0.5g under its NATOPS limit.  The examples you provided were not related to overstress.  No F-14 ever ripped its wings off in real life, for that matter, let alone detonated because of an overstress.  I hope you find this educational and useful.

Cheers.

Sources:

[1] Ed. Lake, Jon, "F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfighter" (London, Aerospace Publishing, 1998), 78; Stevenson J.P., "F-14 Tomcat" (PA: TAB Aero, 1975), 53, 68.
[2] Lake "F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfighter," 66-68; Stevenson, "F-14 Tomcat," 59; Mike Ciminera, F-14A Design Evolution, "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsUCixAeZ0A" 19:10-19:25
[3] maxsin1972, "Top Gun pilot Capt Dale "Snort" Snodgrass Lectures At The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZ0Q6anxbo 45:35-46:00
[4] Tomcat-Sunset discussion, source no longer available, & Auten, Donald E, "Roger Ball!" (New York: iUniverse Star, 2006), 352-353.
[5] Keith Nance, Q&A with Keith "Okie" Nance, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKA3ITCZt9o
[6] The Museum of Flight, "The American Fighter Aces Association's F-14 Tomcat Panel Discussion," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f5pmrePuQw 45:39-46:10
[7] The Fighter Pilot Podcast, "TOPGUN Instructors React to 'Top Gun: Maverick'," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5tJA9pluxY 21:15-22:03
[8] maxsin1972, "Capt Dale "Snort" Snodgrass Lectures," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZ0Q6anxbo 44:30-45:26
[9] Fight's On Military Aviation Enthusiasts, "Speed And Angels (Unofficial) Reunion - Jay, Megan, Peyton & Paco talk about the F-14 Tomcat," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK4EP7Sbg1Q 1:05:50 - 1:06:45
[10] flysupertomcat1, "VF-32 Final Tomcat cruise video pt.1", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI73mzmfr2I 5:05-5:10

 

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

[RustBelt]

Droppin SCIENCE!!!

[illegal1984]

Quid FTFW.

[lunaticfringe]

3 hours ago, Mistang said:

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.

 

None of his citations ended with a destroyed aircraft.  He read his cited material just fine; you did not. 

 

[lunaticfringe]

From 2:46 to 3:11, this Demo Team F-14 turns in excess of 270 degrees in fifteen seconds- or, greater than 18 degrees per second.  Consult your copy of that AAP-1.1 you shared to see what that works out to at 2:53- when he's doing 430 knots from a 380 knot entry with the burners lit and maintaining that turn rate. 

By your argument, the Tomcat should have exploded within seconds, yet, she persisted, at over 7.5G.

Your argument, as my kids say, is sus.  Thanks for playing.  

 

[Lurker]

Here is another airshow where the Tomcat clearly pulls more than 6G in a turn:

 

Disclaimer:

Conspiracy theorists, and people who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, will probably not believe any video, or other evidence presented. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Lurker

[Mistang]

8 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

From 2:46 to 3:11, this Demo Team F-14 turns in excess of 270 degrees in fifteen seconds- or, greater than 18 degrees per second.  Consult your copy of that AAP-1.1 you shared to see what that works out to at 2:53- when he's doing 430 knots from a 380 knot entry with the burners lit and maintaining that turn rate. 

By your argument, the Tomcat should have exploded within seconds, yet, she persisted, at over 7.5G.

Your argument, as my kids say, is sus.  Thanks for playing.  

 

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?

[cheezit]

24 minutes ago, Mistang said:

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?

I'm not a party to this, but I'll dispute it.  100 m/s is 194 knots.  430 knots is 221 m/s, 380 knots is 195 m/s.

[Tom Kazansky]

Is "ke" kinetic energy? If so, isn't

ke = 0.5mv^2

?

[Mistang]

13 minutes ago, cheezit said:

I'm not a party to this, but I'll dispute it.  100 m/s is 194 knots.  430 knots is 221 m/s, 380 knots is 195 m/s.

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

[cheezit]

You alternate between saying the Tomcat is a 6g plane and a 7.5g plane quickly enough to give yourself whiplash, get calculations wrong by more than a factor of two, ignore the copious evidence contrary to your assertions, ignore Grumman's calculations that structural failure is expected at 13g (which would lead to load factor limits of 8.67g with the normal 1.5x safety factor standard in the aviation industry), engage in wild hyperbole that aircraft that were either fine or had minimal damage (jammed slats, bent torque tubes) were "destroyed in seconds" - are you even attempting to argue in good faith here, or is this merely a trolling exercise?

[Mistang]

Just now, cheezit said:

You alternate between saying the Tomcat is a 6g plane and a 7.5g plane quickly enough to give yourself whiplash, get calculations wrong by more than a factor of two, ignore the copious evidence contrary to your assertions, ignore Grumman's calculations that structural failure is expected at 13g (which would lead to load factor limits of 8.67g with the normal 1.5x safety factor standard in the aviation industry), engage in wild hyperbole that aircraft that were either fine or had minimal damage (jammed slats, bent torque tubes) were "destroyed in seconds" - are you even attempting to argue in good faith here, or is this merely a trolling exercise?

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