I pulled 13.3 Gs
-
I think G forces in the 20’s can break bones.
-
“Brazda sz uğrşın mk çevrmeye. :D”
= “Birazda siz uğraşın mk çevirmeye.” = “Some of you turn yourself around mk.” (?)
-
I think G forces in the 20’s can break bones.
The operative word here is ‘can’, there is some interesting reading about this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp
And some here, including a chart on common G-Force measurements.Apparently human testing up to 46 g’s with sustained 25 g’s is survivable, and helped develop equipment for pilots that was designed to protect up to 32 g’s. Very interesting. But the most interesting thing was that Rocket launches only provide sustained 3 g’s on their passengers. Much lower then I would have thought.
I say ‘can’ because the John Stapp article indicates that he rode the sled more then 20 times and only suffered two breaks (both on his wrist, apparently).
EDIT: Later on in the same G-Force chart there is some information that suggest Indy Car drivers have survived 100 g crashes. Crazy.
EDIT #2: Some more thought made me google SpaceShipOne acceleration and it apparently peaks at 5 g (during reentry), just another data point for consideration.
-
Probably the best simulator-G in Europe …
As I know, the training takes up to 9G…NO MORE!!
Sorry…only Polish language, but many you can see the …
-
The real F-16 was limited to positive 9G in pitch - the limiter can allow up to ~9.8G say but anything else pilots saw was apparently down to the HUD accelerometer. Interestingly a way to trick the real system to increase available G is moddelled in BMS - whether this is due to it being part of the FLCS implementation brought over.
The new ATAGS suit I was reading seems to make positive 9Gs a bit more bearable.
-
The real F-16 was limited to positive 9G in pitch - the limiter can allow up to ~9.8G say but anything else pilots saw was apparently down to the HUD accelerometer. Interestingly a way to trick the real system to increase available G is moddelled in BMS - whether this is due to it being part of the FLCS implementation brought over.
The new ATAGS suit I was reading seems to make positive 9Gs a bit more bearable.
Wrong statement
the 9g limiter can be easily overshoot by assaulting two limiters in the same time. Which means the FLCS can not control G as it should… 10g to 11g are quite easy to trigger
-
Wrong statement
the 9g limiter can be easily overshoot by assaulting two limiters in the same time. Which means the FLCS can not control G as it should… 10g to 11g are quite easy to trigger
@-1:
From 5-3, Acceleration Limitations: A false maximum g indication may be displayed in the HUD due to INU vibration while the aircraft is at maximum g. G indications above 10 (e.g., 0.2 for 10.2g) have been observed.
In BMS, 10 or 11g is easy to trigger.
Maneuvers that would trigger this are prohibited in the dash - as they are maximum command roll maneuvers over 3G. Would be interesting to see tapes of the flight tests that made them decide that that should be prohibited.
-
Howto assault two limiters in the same time in BMS 4.32 please?
(there were hotkeys for turning off G limiters in Falcon 3.0 MiG and Hornet) -
Howto assault two limiters in the same time in BMS 4.32 please?
(there were hotkeys for turning off G limiters in Falcon 3.0 MiG and Hornet)low speed, high altitude, high AOA and pitch up command which
is basically a barrel roll at high AOA – this is what we call an “assault on two limiters”: roll
rate and pitch.I come here strictly for the articles
-
It seems there is another version of this forum for East European simmers …… thank you friendly Blu3wolf - Five Eyes member
So it is useless in a dogfight - or if i want to execute sharp turn under normal conditions.
-
9G isnt sharp enough?
Assaulting the limiters in a dogfight is a pretty bad idea. The limiters are there to stop you from departing the jet - or from HAVING to depart the jet (via ACES II).
Closest thing to an off switch for limiters is the Manual Pitch Override switch, or the CATI/III switch. Neither one of them is really useful for executing sharper than normal turns - though they can technically allow that to happen.
The short version is, no off switch for limiters exists.
-
Wrong statement
the 9g limiter can be easily overshoot by assaulting two limiters in the same time. Which means the FLCS can not control G as it should… 10g to 11g are quite easy to trigger
Was mainly regarding pitch limiter - but I quote:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24886&p=266875#p266875
_The F-16 g limiter is not perfect and it can be defeated by a small amount, maybe .6 to .8 g. There is no way it would let you go to 11.2g in a turn. However there are two factors which may have led him to believe he did. First, his g meter is in the HUD and is driven by an accelerometer in the HUD electronics. The flight control accelerometer is about 5 feet behind the pilot, so those two units may give different values. Second, if he was rolling at high g, the roll rate and acceleration may affect either accelerometer and result in false readings. Pitch acceleration can also make false g reading.
So he may well have seen 11.2g but he likely did not really get there._
The trick I mention is from an old code 1 Article and doesn’t require assaulting multiple limiters.
-
9G isnt sharp enough?
Sure it is. But as F3.05 Fulcrum/Hornet driver, I am trained enough to pull 10+ Gs. :P…. My limiter is still OFF inside MiG (I even broke my wings few times). In Hornet - I use limiter (7,5G) 98% of flight time (great feature in a bit underpowered C Hornet)…but if I am in dogfight and fast enough, I turn it OFF usually.
-
Clean jet, high G and pushing the rudder through the floor can get you an indicated 11-12G for a fraction of a second, without losing control. Didn’t know it was possible, until I experienced it myself a few days ago while goofing around.
I always heard the F-16 computers limited the jet to 9G because human performance didn’t allow for more, but that the jet can actually handle (a lot) more. Does anyone know what the maximum certified structural limit is? 15G? 20G?
-
u have 9,5G in level flight….is it normal…?
-
I always heard the F-16 computers limited the jet to 9G because human performance didn’t allow for more, but that the jet can actually handle (a lot) more. Does anyone know what the maximum certified structural limit is? 15G? 20G?
Some info on this thread:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10663_The limit with full 370s is 6.5g. Considering that all g limits have a 150% design factor, 7g would not cause any structural failure. Plus the only time you have full 370s is just as you drop off of a tanker.
……
(1) We are not talking about “available” g here, which is determined by AoA, weight, and airspeed. g limit refers to structural g limit, above which some part of the airplane exceeds limit load. That part is not necessarily the wing, recalling the forward fuselage failure on the F-15 several months ago.
(2) The 7.33g you mention for the F-15 is in fact 2/3 of 11g, but 11g has nothing to do with a “fatigue” limit. 7.33g is called the design load factor and 11g is called the ultimate load factor. That means the structure was designed to fail at the most critical 11g condition, considering fuel load, weapon load, airspeed, and altitude. The 9g / 13.5g relation is the same. Fatigue is the effect of reduced strength due to many repeated loads.…
The first limiters were primitive due to limited computer power. Today’s limiters are more capable but the controversy remains._
The limits are not only due to Humans either - the loads a structure would have to handle going to 15G thousands of times in a life time would require some engineering feats for limited value.
-
Was mainly regarding pitch limiter - but I quote:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24886&p=266875#p266875
_The F-16 g limiter is not perfect and it can be defeated by a small amount, maybe .6 to .8 g. There is no way it would let you go to 11.2g in a turn. However there are two factors which may have led him to believe he did. First, his g meter is in the HUD and is driven by an accelerometer in the HUD electronics. The flight control accelerometer is about 5 feet behind the pilot, so those two units may give different values. Second, if he was rolling at high g, the roll rate and acceleration may affect either accelerometer and result in false readings. Pitch acceleration can also make false g reading.
So he may well have seen 11.2g but he likely did not really get there._
The trick I mention is from an old code 1 Article and doesn’t require assaulting multiple limiters.
I am of coursse talking about assaulting limiters where the flcs is unable to keep the flight under normal control…though after a peak of aoa/g it is most of the time able to recover within acceptable limits.
In a standard tun flcs is able to keep 9g (9.3g for analog flcs) without to much problem. Add 0.2 / 0.3 g on top for dynamic factors….it means it can top 9.5 for instance til the flcs catches the Gs and return to 9g… it is a fraction of second but the gmeter will log it
-
Clean jet, high G and pushing the rudder through the floor can get you an indicated 11-12G for a fraction of a second, without losing control. Didn’t know it was possible, until I experienced it myself a few days ago while goofing around.
I always heard the F-16 computers limited the jet to 9G because human performance didn’t allow for more, but that the jet can actually handle (a lot) more. Does anyone know what the maximum certified structural limit is? 15G? 20G?
I want your soundpack m8! Please point me in the right directon.
Thx in advance!
/Jas