^Thats breaking it down Barney style!
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Another "praise the Raptor" article
- Thread starter Lonestar155
- Start date
^Thats breaking it down Barney style!
but if you are in an airplane then you need a minimum speed to turn for the bank angle you are at. in level turns, G force is a function of bank angle, not airspeed (1/cos(bankangle). as your airspeed goes up the bank angle you can turn at increases to a point where it exceeds your airplane's g-limit.
this is the best graph i could find..
i cant do the calculations because i dont have a calculator, here: for an airplane with a stall speed of 56kts at 75 degrees bank angle (4 g's) at 110kts (minimum speed for that bank angle) the turn radius is 289 ft
for 60 degrees bank angle (2g) at 79 kts the turn radius is 320 feet
http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
You are still hung up on shock-and-awe and the CNN war. Things have significantly changed over the past several years. Think of it this way. You are going into a fight with an elephant. If you lose, you know what happens. So why wouldn't you make sure you had the baddest elephant gun in the fight? (other than the fact you were bailing out financial idiots facing foreclosure and irresponsible octa-moms.)Turtl3 said:
This graph is not directly applicable because it is talking about air speeds well below those of fighter aircraft. G Force is a function of turn rate and speed. Think of spinning a rock on a string between your fingers. If you keep the string the same length, the rock will pull increasingly harder against your fingers if you increase its speed. If you keep the speed the same but reduce the length of the spring, you also increase the force.
Fighters cannot pull max G below a certain airspeed - say around 320 knots. They make their quickest turns (turn rate / time) at max G in the 380 to 440 knot range. Beyond that airspeed, more force than max G would be required to achieve the same turn rate.
You can take a look at a doghouse that shows this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TurnRateEnvelope.GIF
The minimum radius turn (degrees / distance) is usually achieved at too low an airspeed to achieve max G. The turn takes longer, but happens in a shorter distance. Usually, turning depends on the yaw force generated by the rudder and the axial force generated by bank. Thrust vectoring adds an additional yaw force that reduces the radius of the turn.
Fighters cannot pull max G below a certain airspeed - say around 320 knots. They make their quickest turns (turn rate / time) at max G in the 380 to 440 knot range. Beyond that airspeed, more force than max G would be required to achieve the same turn rate.
You can take a look at a doghouse that shows this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TurnRateEnvelope.GIF
The minimum radius turn (degrees / distance) is usually achieved at too low an airspeed to achieve max G. The turn takes longer, but happens in a shorter distance. Usually, turning depends on the yaw force generated by the rudder and the axial force generated by bank. Thrust vectoring adds an additional yaw force that reduces the radius of the turn.
check your pm since i am pissing people off
Just for another datapoint, here is the rate/radius diagram the USAF uses when teaching dogfighting in the AT-38C.
For those posting charts...
Post that trash in the NFO thread. They love that shit.
Live long and prosper.
Post that trash in the NFO thread. They love that shit.
Live long and prosper.
Maybe someday if you ever fly a fighter you'll understand why E-M diagrams aren't for dorks.
wannabe threadjack: Are these not the work of the late, very non-dorky looking, Col. John Boyd?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)
Ok seriously, and be honest, how many times in the ready room - not in the debrief - did anybody whip out an E-M and go, "See, I was right about there in the energy egg and you were about there, and that's why I hosed your ass!"?
I've read Boyd and loved it - I relate to his epiphany during thermo at GATECH.
IMHO, whitesoxnation was just looking for an explanation like the one kazimake gave. So I addressed the geek nation, just as I would in our ready room, asking them how to make my computer go as fast as their jet.
That is all.
It would be one thing if I were, say, an SNA whipping out an E-M diagram in this discussion. Then, valid point about being a dork.
However, I'm not.
As a matter of fact, relating to your first question, I drew an E-M diagram on a piece of scrap paper while having a discussion in the bar today with one of the nuggets in my squadron (we don't call them nuggets in the 'ironed flight suit and scarf' service, but I'll dance the Navy dance here on AW). No, it's not just something that a bunch of guys wearing glasses and pocket protectors talk about while fantasizing about flying jets. It has real application in real life.
So, again...it may not make sense in what you are doing right now, but don't scoff it until you have enough knowledge/experience to have enough SA to know to scoff it.
Relevant to the question? Certainly a lot more relevant than the two glider diagrams that were posted to begin with.
You addressed it how you would in your ready room? So, if a senior instructor in your squadron responded to a question with the use of an E-M diagram, you'd tell him he's on the "geek squad" and tell him to go sell it to some NFOs? Riiight. Good luck with that one.
It makes perfect sense sir, and being a geek myself (engineer) I make fun of the guys that do it...in a respectful light-hearted way.
If it were to come up in the ready room in the fleet and that was the topic of the discussion, I would make the jab "...and the leader of the geek squad has entered the thunderdome...," and then commence to hearing what the guy had to say all the while trying to get a take-away piece of information.
We actually have an IP in our squadron who is a Super Geek and loves talking about this kind of shit. He'll brief you ad nauseam if you bring it up, of which I did, inadvertently. I mentioned the word 'energy' in response to a question of his, and it was off to the races for the next two hours. Somewhere, amidst the tangents of string theory and Stephen Hawking, I said, "Sir, I thought this was the crap that NFO's ate up and argued about over at the O-club?" He came back with some sly comment that I cant remember and probably couldn't repeat anyway. When I see him now and hear him talking about something related, I'll say something like, "Geeks Unite! Semper Fi Sir" just cause it's funny. It's a big hat. It's Funny.
The funnier thing is, I used to have old 486s all over the floor of my room too - I just dont like tighty-whiteys.
So my long winded point is, take pride in being a geek but don't think that means your off limits to getting elbowed.