Change Forum... Civil Aviation Travel, Polls & Prefs Tech/Ops Aviation Hobby Aviation Photography Photography Feedback Trip Reports Military Av & Space Non-Aviation Site Related LIVE Chat My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search
 Energy Maneuverability Equation
 Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted Thu Jul 17 2008 20:13:19 UTC (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9323 times:

 Okay, from what I remember -The higher the thrust/weight ratio you have, the more aggressively you can turn without losing speed -The lower the wing-loading at low airspeed for the same T/W ratio, the tighter you can turn without losing speed -The higher the wing-loading at high airspeed for the same T/W ratio, the tighter you can turn without losing speed Doesn't the wing's L/D ratio factor into this equation? Because I was thinking, you could have a huge wing which is an aerodynamic piece of crap, and a small wing which is extremely efficient. Also, swing-wings which have very large wing-areas even swept back seem to do very well at high IAS in terms of sustained maneuvering (which appears to be because with a high-sweep, the L/D ratio changes). Andrea Kent BTW: Should I disappear, get a heart-attack, commit-suicide, die suspiciously, contract some incurable disease, or end up arrested on bogus charges, you know who's to blame for it.[Edited 2008-07-17 20:13:35]
 Rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2740 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted Thu Jul 17 2008 21:57:59 UTC (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9325 times:

 In short your ability to turn is based on how much lift your wing can produce. Avoiding a loss of speed (assuming we're talking about a level turn) requires that your engine produce enough thrust to compensate for the drag the wings (plus any parasitic drag) produce creating that lift. So yes, it's fundamentally a function of available thrust and L/D. Remember that L/D is not a constant, but varies considerably over the flight regime. Consider an aircraft weighing 100,000lbs, in a level 3G turn, with an L/D of 10:1 (in that particular set of flight conditions). To avoid losing speed, the engines need to be producing 30,000lbs of thrust.
 Kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 698 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted Thu Jul 17 2008 23:25:45 UTC (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9310 times:

 This might help. The Energy-Maneuverability Equation that was created by Air Force fighter pilot/engineer John Boyd is as follows: The specific energy rate of an aircraft , ie an aircraft at 30,000 feet at 450 knots and pulling 6 Gs, is equal to thrust minus drag over weight, multiplied by velocity. Boyd revolutionized air-to-air tactics and fighter design.
 Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted Fri Jul 18 2008 08:18:30 UTC (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9260 times:

 Understood... Just out of curiousity. While I know that an unstable design with super-maneuverability with light wing-loading doesn't bleed off as much airspeed when flying at high IAS (where light wing-loading doesn't typically do so well)? Especially considering such high alphas generally generate a lot of drag... Andrea Kent
 BlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted Sat Jul 19 2008 14:10:03 UTC (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9150 times:

 Ps = [T-D]V W P sub S =Thrust - Drag / Weight * Velocity Comes to mind as i have seen it written out before by a Proffesor i know. Personaly it is all Squirrel food to me as that would soon drive me NUTS trying to make heads or tails out of it.
 Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted Sat Jul 19 2008 20:09:16 UTC (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9134 times:

 What's "Psub"? Andrea Kent
 BlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted Sun Jul 20 2008 03:09:56 UTC (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9120 times:

 Kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 698 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted Sun Jul 20 2008 08:54:20 UTC (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9099 times:

 What I would suggest is that you try to obtain a copy of the book. "BOYD, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War". By Robert Coram Back Bay Books It has an entire chapter devoted to the energy-maneuverability theory. Note that it is not about the math itself, but the theory behind it. But it goes into the processes of how Boyd came up with it. Boyd is considered by many to be the greatest air tactics theorist to have ever lived. And he applied this to fighter design, specifically the F15 but especially the F16. Also he expanded into all forms of military strategy, and is considered by many to be the pre-eminent military strategist since Sun Tzu, in 400 BC. The US Marine Corps, as noted above at the link, took him to heart and changed their strategies/and tactics due to his influence. I have now just read that book by Coram for the third time, and each time I get something new out of it. One example that Boyd figured out was one reason why the F-86 was able to do so well against the MIG-15 in the Korean War. The MIG flew higher, could turn tighter and had heavier armament. The F-86 should have been inferior. But it had hydraulic flight controls, while the MIG did not. It meant that an F-86 could be much quicker in reversing maneuvers, and was not limited by manual forces that could be applied by the pilot. He was a huge advocate of a smaller, lighter, highly maneuverable fighter. Without him, we would not have the F-16.
 Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted Sun Jul 20 2008 12:16:20 UTC (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9083 times:

 Ironically, his theory helped spawn the F-15, but then he became an opponent of it... Andrea Kent
 Kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 698 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted Sun Jul 20 2008 12:45:01 UTC (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9080 times:

 Quoting Blackbird (Reply 8):Ironically, his theory helped spawn the F-15, but then he became an opponent of it... Andrea Kent

Yes, he was an advocate of the F-15 as he felt it should have been designed, but what happened was that the Air Force proceeded to "gold plate" it with what he considered was much too much extra weight, and a subsequent drop in performance. He had the saying of for every extra pound of "BS" you put on it, it meant that you had to add 20 pounds to carry it, for no good reason. He considered the F-15 as it was supposed to be designed as a good aircraft, but what was actually produced was NOT what he wanted at all. He considered it far too heavy. This then ultimately gave him the motivation to get the Air Force to acquire a smaller lighter fighter, which the Air Force did not want. They wanted the F-15. They fought the F-16 design, saying it was a short ranged aircraft that had far less capability than the F15, as they did not want to take funding from the F-15. When it was shown that the F16 not only could out-turn the F15, but also had greater range due to its greater fuel fraction, produced at far less cost, he beat them and they had to accept the F-16. It turned out that he was right.

Another interesting thing that he did prior to all of this was to analyze the existing US fighter aircraft versus the existing Soviet aircraft, and found that in most cases, the US aircraft fell short on energy and maneuverability. They were fast but couldn't accelerate or turn as well. He was particularly critical of the swing wing F111 and the B1 Bomber, which never met their original specifications. It was said of the F4, that a brick could go Mach 2 if you put enough power on it. Later, in Vietnam, the F4 had a difficult time dealing with the much more maneuverable MIGs. He was right.

He made a lot of enemies in the Air Force, with his frank analysis, but his numbers were right and he did his homework. And he knew airplanes inside out and what they could or could not do.

 Ferrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted Thu Jul 31 2008 04:37:57 UTC (7 years 9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8919 times:

 Quoting Rwessel (Reply 1):Consider an aircraft weighing 100,000lbs, in a level 3G turn, with an L/D of 10:1 (in that particular set of flight conditions). To avoid losing speed, the engines need to be producing 30,000lbs of thrust.

An aircraft weighing 100,000lbs would be a pretty big plane to be hauling around with a 70degree bank angle and which is what you would have if pulling a level 3G turn.

 Rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2740 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted Thu Jul 31 2008 15:38:15 UTC (7 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8894 times:

 Quoting Ferrypilot (Reply 10):An aircraft weighing 100,000lbs would be a pretty big plane to be hauling around with a 70degree bank angle and which is what you would have if pulling a level 3G turn.

An F-111 would be in the ballpark, but it was just a round number for sake of illustration... But even so, something like a 737 is physically capable of a 3G turn, even though it's not often flown that way.

 BlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted Fri Aug 1 2008 04:54:16 UTC (7 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8859 times:

 A BONE(B1b) does a lot of HI G turns and Rolls a lot so large heavy machines if Designd rite can do every thing a smaller machine can do just with 5 or 6 times the War load and 4 or 5 times the range. A BONE is rearly just a very large F-111 or a Strike Eagle on Steroids!
 Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted Fri Aug 1 2008 10:31:32 UTC (7 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8843 times:

 How many G's can the B-1A / B-1B pull? Blackbird
 Ferrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted Mon Aug 4 2008 04:51:58 UTC (7 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 8762 times:

 Quoting Rwessel (Reply 11):But even so, something like a 737 is physically capable of a 3G turn, even though it's not often flown that way.

I haven't flown the 737. ...However I have seen the max. g limit for it advertised as being 2.5 And in which case it would be quite adventurous to attempt to fly even a 60 degree banked turn requiring only a 2 g pull in the type.
...And I suggest to you that were an average pilot to attempt a 3 g level turn (corresponding to 70degrees bank < ) in the 737 there would be a very high risk of an accident occurring. ...As an accidental over bank of only 10 degrees during any part of that turn would suddenly require a 6 g pull to stop the nose dropping and to maintain height. And which I would have to suspect would most likely cause catastrophic structural failure of the airframe.

 Rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2740 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted Mon Aug 4 2008 13:44:28 UTC (7 years 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 8736 times:

 Quoting Ferrypilot (Reply 14):However I have seen the max. g limit for it advertised as being 2.5 And in which case it would be quite adventurous to attempt to fly even a 60 degree banked turn requiring only a 2 g pull in the type. ...And I suggest to you that were an average pilot to attempt a 3 g level turn (corresponding to 70degrees bank < ) in the 737 there would be a very high risk of an accident occurring. ...As an accidental over bank of only 10 degrees during any part of that turn would suddenly require a 6 g pull to stop the nose dropping and to maintain height. And which I would have to suspect would most likely cause catastrophic structural failure of the airframe.

Oh, I agree. My "but it isn't often flown that way" was a bit too flippant - a 737 would never actually be flown that way in anything other than flight test or if the pilot suddenly saw a whole lot of granite in the windscreen. My point was that a 3G turn is not inherently far-fetched for an aircraft of that size.

 Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted Mon Aug 4 2008 19:40:06 UTC (7 years 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 8719 times:

 Ferrypilot, Rwessel's statement is correct. A plane that size could physically pull such a maneuver off, therefore it would not be far-fetched to say a plane that size could pull such a maneuver off. Of course such a maneuver would only be done in an emergency...
 Ferrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted Tue Aug 5 2008 04:55:39 UTC (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8705 times:

 Quoting Blackbird (Reply 16):A plane that size could physically pull such a maneuver off, therefore it would not be far-fetched to say a plane that size could pull such a maneuver off.

Well I believe it is "far fetched" to imagine that an intelligent pilot would ever think of trying to fly a level 3g turn in a 737. ...I would be very surprised if any Boeing test pilot has tried that! ...My personal view is that you need an airframe that is advertised by the manufacturer as good for a minimum of 6g in order to plan on having a sufficient safety margin in a 3g / 70degree banked level turn.

 Top Of Page Change Forum... Civil Aviation Travel, Polls & Prefs Tech/Ops Aviation Hobby Aviation Photography Photography Feedback Trip Reports Military Av & Space Non-Aviation Site Related LIVE Chat Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Energy Maneuverability Equation
• Military aviation related posts only!
• Not military related? Use the other forums
• No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
• No hostile language or criticizing of others.
• Do not post copyright protected material.
• Use relevant and describing topics.