Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Maximum G-Capability / Different Eras  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6617 times:

I have a question regarding typical and maximum-G capabilities of airplanes of different eras.


This normally would be a simple questions but I've heard various cases in which I've heard conflicting data.

- A book called "Wings" / "Cutting Edge" (it's two books that come together) which had a foreword by Chuck Yeager said that WWII capable aircraft could already pull 7.33 G's, and that they already used G-suits then, giving them an edge over German pilots who didn't, and lead-computing gunsights and all that... (I'm not sure if that's true -- suposedly Chuck Yeager is known for being full of it sometimes)

- I've also heard sources which said that 5.33 G's was a common G-force figure during the fifties and early sixties as well.

-There's also "fudge factor" as well -- deliberately underrating the figures to make the performance of the aircraft seem less. For example the F8U was listed as 6.5 G's max, but it could pull G's higher than that.


What was the typical G-figures for fighter-aircraft of WW2? Such as the F4U, and F6F, the P-40, P-47, F6U, P-51, and P-80?

What was the typical G-figures for fighter-aircraft of the Korean-War Era? Such as the FJ, F2H, F7U, F9F (Panther), and F-9 (Cougar), the F-84, the F-86, and F-84F?

What was the typical G-figures for fighter-aircraft designed between the Korean and Vietnam Era (and often served in Vietnam)? Such as the F4D/F-6, F3H/F-3, F11F, and F8U/F-8, the F-89, F-94, F-86D, F-100, F-101, F-102A, F-104, F-105, F-106A and F-4?


Blackbird

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6462 times:

Okay...

Let's keep this simpler. Did Chuck Yeager's statements about WW2 fighters being able to pull 7.33 G's, pilots already having G-suits, and lead-computing gunsights being brand new then?


Blackbird


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3514 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6352 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):

- I've also heard sources which said that 5.33 G's was a common G-force figure during the fifties and early sixties as well.

The German F-4 Phantom is limited to 6.5 Gs, but can do more...


User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6343 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
The German F-4 Phantom is limited to 6.5 Gs

True, air forces commonly place a lower G limit on aircraft to reduce wear on their fleets, at least in peacetime.



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6315 times:

How many G's could the F-4 take physically (like in quick bursts, or even prolonged high-g maneuvers) without coming apart or anything?


Blackbird


User currently offlineJabs From Portugal, joined Feb 2007, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5763 times:



Quote:
G-Suits

By autumn 1944, G-suits had been developed for pilots, and the 339th and 357th were amongst the groups which combat-tested them. They were filled with either water or air, and were designed to prevent black-outs during high speed manoeuvres, as ‘Bud’ Anderson recounts.

“The Mustangs, generally speaking, could take harder turns than the people who flew them. Long before the wings flew off, the pilots would simply lose consciousness. The blood drained from his head by centrifugal force, measured in Gs. Five Gs and you might ‘gray out’ but be able to function. Six or so and you could ‘black out’ and lose consciousness. The form-fitting suits simply inflated as the airplane pulled Gs, hugging you, and preventing your blood from running from your brain all at once.”

“They were strictly experimental, which was why we had two different kinds. The water suits were like overalls. The crew chief filled them up at the top with a funnel and pitcher (as I recall, it took several pitchers) and when the mission was done you would sit on the wing, open two little drains at your ankles and the water would simply empty in two silver streams. The problem with the water suits was that they were cold, and I only wore one a couple of times. We tried filling them with warm water, but at six miles up they cooled quickly. The air suits, attached to a G-sensitive valve, drew air through a line that ran from the pressure side of the engine’s vacuum pump. These suits wrapped around your abdomen, thighs and calves in three sections that looked like a cowboy’s chaps, and they inflated automatically. Those worked much better.”

“With the G suits, we could fly a little harder, turn a little bit tighter. We could pull maybe one extra G now, which gave us an edge. There was no resistence to wearing them as we understood what they meant right away: Wearing one was the same as making the airplane better.”


“Mustang Aces of the Eight Air Force” by Jerry Scoutts, Osprey Aircraft of the Aces Nº 1, ISBN 1-8553244-74, Osprey Publishing 1994



User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5754 times:

What was the max-G load of the F-86? Was it the same as the P-51?


Blackbird


User currently offlineFerrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5721 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
What was the typical G-figures for fighter-aircraft of WW2? Such as the F4U, and F6F, the P-40, P-47, P-51,

It is reasonable to suppose that all of these types were good for at least 6g and probably 7g. Although that's a big generalisation it is based on the fact that I have not heard of any of them having a reputation for their wings clapping together which was a problem with early German Me109's and is usually what happens when you pull too much G. Since it is reasonable to suppose that almost all fighter pilots would instinctively pull to their blackout threshold in combat, especially whilst trying to escape an attacking fighter. ...And I think on average most guys blackout around 6g without g suits.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5683 times:

Ferrypilot,

What do you mean "wings clapping together"?


User currently offlineFerrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5662 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 8):
What do you mean "wings clapping together"?

If your main spar fails as a consequence of pulling too much G you can expect the wings to virtually slap together above your head.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5599 times:

You mean they flex so bad they it each other? Wouldn't that be a fatal problem?

Blackbird


User currently offlineFerrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5576 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 10):
You mean they flex so bad they it each other? Wouldn't that be a fatal problem?

A pilot pulling more g than an airframe can take is likely to break the wing main spar. When that happens he can expect the wings to break off the airframe almost instantaneously. As the fuselage immediately plunges down the broken off wings have a tendency to meet each other above. ...as if they are going to clap together.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5555 times:

Okay, I know what you're talking about.

Blackbird


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4363 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5132 times:

'G limits are only applicable when you need to use the aircraft again'

I plagiarize from 'Palace Cobra' by Ed Rasimus, in any event, he mentions, in one chapter an F4 manoeuvering to avoid a SAM pulling 10g's overstressing the aircraft obviously but it held together until they made it back to base.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Maximum G-Capability / Different Eras
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • 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.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pressure Suit - Maximum Safe Ejection Speed posted Wed Apr 23 2008 19:09:47 by Blackbird
Super Sabre / Voodoo Maximum Speed posted Wed Jun 13 2007 00:48:51 by Blackbird
AH64A With A Different Paint posted Mon Feb 19 2007 09:49:28 by HeliflyerPDC
It Sure Is Different In The Air Force posted Thu Jan 11 2007 14:08:28 by Army15P
F-16C/D Carrier Capability posted Fri May 12 2006 00:15:00 by Cancidas
"Surge" Capability To Build More Bombers? posted Sun Jan 1 2006 16:26:03 by AerospaceFan
Head-on Capability Of AIM-9L... posted Fri Nov 5 2004 15:43:51 by Vzlet
Different Paint Jobs On Fighters posted Sun Aug 27 2006 19:29:10 by FlyMKG
KC-10 Maximum Unrefueled Range? posted Thu Dec 9 2004 08:31:47 by USAFHummer
US Airlift Capability; General Worried posted Tue Jan 14 2003 14:11:02 by Heavymetal

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format