Highway to physical reality

[FWind]

[Mistang]

Just now, FWind said:

These are about roll rates. Rolling is substantially easier than turning as the velocity is unchanged.

[Frosty2124]

3 minutes ago, FWind said:

for those that may struggle to understand it might be worth highlighting the <6.5g sections of these tables

 

[Mistang]

2 minutes ago, Frosty2124 said:

for those that may struggle to understand it might be worth highlighting the <6.5g sections of these tables

 

All these prove op. It says a 130 degree roll will exceed.

[FWind]

https://youtu.be/XRyIqX3o3ic10.2

Edited August 30, 2022 by FWind

[Mistang]

3 minutes ago, FWind said:

https://youtu.be/XRyIqX3o3ic10.2

 

Finding a maximum G in isolation is sort of meaningless. Did the gauge slip around on its own? Etc.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

291 was having a whole lot of fun.

[Frosty2124]

18 minutes ago, Mistang said:

All these prove op. It says a 130 degree roll will exceed.

what? roll will never load the aircraft down like that? i think you may have your axis mixed up

[lunaticfringe]

44 minutes ago, Mistang said:

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

We're literally talking turns Mach 0.6-0.75, but you do you.  You didn't just move the goalpost a couple yards- you've moved it to another state in the attempt to remain relevant.  

 

[Mistang]

Just now, lunaticfringe said:

We're literally talking turns Mach 0.6-0.75, but you do you.  You didn't just move the goalpost a couple yards- you've moved it to another state in the attempt to remain relevant.  

 

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.

[cheezit]

What was the deal with aircraft #98?

[G.J.S]

This thread needs to be burned.

Mssr Mistang can believe whatever he/she wishes to believe. The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that he/she gets off on lighting a match and watching the resulting conflagration.

 

”Stop feeding the fish”

[Mistang]

1 minute ago, G.J.S said:

This thread needs to be burned.

Mssr Mistang can believe whatever he/she wishes to believe. The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that he/she gets off on lighting a match and watching the resulting conflagration.

 

”Stop feeding the fish”

I am fine with ending the thread as fringe refuses to support his claim.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

27 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

This thread needs to be burned.

Mssr Mistang can believe whatever he/she wishes to believe. The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that he/she gets off on lighting a match and watching the resulting conflagration.

 

”Stop feeding the fish”

Yeah, we're witnessing bad faith arguments learned from Youtube chicanery as opposed from actual discussion. OP has been proven incorrect. Time to move on.

Edited August 30, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Mistang]

3 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Yeah, we're witnessing bad faith arguments learned from Youtube chicanery as opposed from actual discussion. OP has been proven incorrect. Time to move on.

 

I never cited YouTube.

[Machalot]

2 hours ago, Mistang said:

Could you be more specific?

Maybe you could start by explaining what physics equation you used to get from speed (1000 m/s) and mass (10 tons) to a measure of power (100 GW).

[Mistang]

6 minutes ago, Machalot said:

Maybe you could start by explaining what physics equation you used to get from speed (1000 m/s) and mass (10 tons) to a measure of power (100 GW).

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.

[captain_dalan]

On 8/29/2022 at 11:13 PM, 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!

It's very hard to take a thread or a discussion seriously, when the initiator of the said thread proclaims himself the winner in the very first post, and then proceeds to change the goals of the discussion with every post that voids his initial claims. Now, i'm not a lawyer, not a moderator, but as a layman, this all seems rather fishy to me.  

[Mistang]

5 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

It's very hard to take a thread or a discussion seriously, when the initiator of the said thread proclaims himself the winner in the very first post, and then proceeds to change the goals of the discussion with every post that voids his initial claims. Now, i'm not a lawyer, not a moderator, but as a layman, this all seems rather fishy to me.  

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.

[DSplayer]

9 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

It's very hard to take a thread or a discussion seriously, when the initiator of the said thread proclaims himself the winner in the very first post, and then proceeds to change the goals of the discussion with every post that voids his initial claims. Now, i'm not a lawyer, not a moderator, but as a layman, this all seems rather fishy to me.  

As the one that cited that video which countered his claim that the Tomcat is a 6G aircraft and cannot pull more for a fraction of a second, this entire argument, in my honest opinion, has been trying to argue with an inanimate object. Like this isn't a discussion but more of something to gawk at and be amazed at how someone can try to deny every ounce of evidence that is readily available on the internet.

For those wondering the video, here it is. It's a video where Kurt Schroeder, former Grumman Test Pilot, describes the time where he was RIOing for an Iranian trainee and that trainee inadvertently pulled 10+ Gs resulting in the G meter to be pegged at at the maximum G limit it could display:

 

[Mistang]

4 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

As the one that cited that video which countered his claim that the Tomcat is a 6G aircraft and cannot pull more for a fraction of a second, this entire argument, in my honest opinion, has been trying to argue with an inanimate object. Like this isn't a discussion but more of something to gawk at and be amazed at how someone can try to deny every ounce of evidence that is readily available on the internet.

For those wondering the video, here it is. It's a video where Kurt Schroeder, former Grumman Test Pilot, describes the time where he was RIOing for an Iranian trainee and that trainee inadvertently pulled 10+ Gs resulting in the G meter to be pegged at at the maximum G limit it could display:

 

That doesn't say anything about the duration or refute my point in any way, it actually voiced concern the plane would break.

[NeedzWD40]

Gotta say, there's some serious knowledge being dropped in this thread. Holy cow guys, just impressive!

But for OP, what's the big deal? Like, why is this so important to you? Did you lose a bet?

[Mistang]

6 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Gotta say, there's some serious knowledge being dropped in this thread. Holy cow guys, just impressive!

But for OP, what's the big deal? Like, why is this so important to you? Did you lose a bet?

I don't really have anything at stake here, I just wanted to demonstrate basic math.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, DSplayer said:

As the one that cited that video which countered his claim that the Tomcat is a 6G aircraft and cannot pull more for a fraction of a second, this entire argument, in my honest opinion, has been trying to argue with an inanimate object. Like this isn't a discussion but more of something to gawk at and be amazed at how someone can try to deny every ounce of evidence that is readily available on the internet.

For those wondering the video, here it is. It's a video where Kurt Schroeder, former Grumman Test Pilot, describes the time where he was RIOing for an Iranian trainee and that trainee inadvertently pulled 10+ Gs resulting in the G meter to be pegged at at the maximum G limit it could display:

 

Oh, the lies students tell their instructors, sometimes. I swear, the ball was centered, I don't know why the airplane snap rolled! 

One thing being lost in this insistence is that you can't really design a fighter with the kind of performance expectations the F-14 had and see a hard structural limit of 6.5 G. They're made to not only be flown by 24 year olds but 24 year olds in a panic as their RWR screams about a launch. No doubt, that 6.5 figure was in place as a measure to ensure the airframe maintained its strength to deal with those sudden spikes of load factor in combat.

The Tu-128 Fiddler had a pretty pathetic max loading and that's reflected in the fact that probably 70% of people posting here don't even know it existed or have completely forgotten about it.

[lunaticfringe]

1 hour ago, Mistang said:

And fringe said a tomcat can sustain a 7g turn for 1 minute like in the game, so he's wrong.

Normally, I'm not a fan of people putting words in my mouth, but this time, I'm going to allow it: 

You have been mathematically incorrect at every attempt in this thread, not by simple rounding or carrying error, but by orders of magnitude that a fundamental understanding would catch on even back of the napkin math.  

And like your continual mistatements, halftruths, and outright fabrications ("airplanes are disposable"), at no point in this conversation have I said a Tomcat would sustain 7Gs worth of load for in excess of a minute in this thread. 

I'm saying it now, categorically: 

A F-14 Tomcat, with the necessary altitude and entry speed, and within its lifetime expected hours and maintenance, would have zero issue sustaining 7.5 G for in excess of one minute, and Mistang- as evidenced by your own work in this thread, there isn't a single thing you are capable of providing to disprove that fact. Not mathematically- as you have repeatedly failed to do, not documentarily. The airframe and crew would absolutely survive that experience; your ego and contentions, not so much. 

4 minutes ago, Mistang said:

I don't really have anything at stake here, I just wanted to demonstrate basic math.

You should try it sometime, bro.