Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aerobatics' started by Wake Burns, Jan 12, 2017.
I know another pilot forum where that would happen
Oh I'm well aware.
However I always enjoy giving a Sci-Fi a bit of plausibility.
Well when you put it like that
you make it sound ridiculous.
Well I got my answer. Thank you.
I'll look into that. I just drew a few sketches of what you depicted so I might end up using it.
I don't think we're taking Super maneuverability into the equation. The PAK-FA can turn inside its own skin. So many VMC violations in this demo I just don't know where to begin.
What am I gonna do?
fact check you to death?
Now there's an ability that could come in handy!
By the way, some long-retired military pilots have told me that the proper term is "jet fighter," not "fighter jet." (I have no idea whether that's true for current military pilots.)
AOA = "angle of attack."
[Thus ends everything I know about this subject!]
Could a tactical jet go Mach five without ripping itself to pieces mid-flight?
(Nevermind I found that out for myself)
Would you be willing to answer a few of my questions then?
As much as I can - but more than likely I'd end up referring you to an expert or help you understand what questions you really need to ask. Depends on how detailed you need to get. As many an actor has said, "I don't really need to know how to do xyz, I just need to know how to act like I know."
This is a piece of cake. Pull straight up into a hammerhead in the middle of the intersection, do a 1/4 roll coming down. Of course, while you are at the low airspeed you will get shot down.
google ya friend, my friend
I did, However I still didn't fully understand until later.
Well I probably should have mentioned the buildings are Empire State Building tall skyscrapers. But that works.
I saw someone above mention 160 kts. The math works out to 82 meters/sec.
Any flying in the city isn't going to last long, even if a turn over an intersection could be made. Once you use up whatever energy you had by missing the building in front of you, you won't have a lot left to miss the next one.
And why would a fighter do that, unless chasing or being chased by, another aircraft? Now you have 2 airplanes trying to avoid buildings. Odds of that lasting more than a few seconds are probably going to be pretty small.
Authors have a way with dealing with that issue. It's called research. The Star Trek books, interestingly, had been written by a person that has never been in a spacecraft.
Okay, I'll be specific and detailed on what I enquirer. I'll ask one or two every so often. Don't make it two hard on you.
I wanted to know the (tensile strength) breaking point of a plane when it comes against G-forces. Like how much stress can you put an F-22 Raptor through until it structurally fails?
I know what I'm looking for, that being "maximum g-load", but the problem is whenever the plane can pull over 9 they never bother going any further.
They just list it as +9. Makes sense knowing pilots hardly ever pull more then that.
Interesting comment on SF writers. Now and then I follow a blog of an author in that genre. He has a couple of rules. One of them is that you must "invent" some way to move faster than light. Otherwise, how interesting can a space travel story be if you never leave the solar system? Transporters, warp drives, hyper-space, Alderson drives, whatever. You need some way to move the action.
I already have a lot written and drawn out, so i can assure you that there is a very good reason.
On top of that, this takes place in the future, so I'm sure I can fiddle with the planes dry thrust and weight to make it work.
I think the breaking point is 50% above the max g-load? Someone else can ring in on this. So an airplane with a 9g max will probably fail at 13.5g?
There are videos of structural tests where wings are weighted until they snap.
Oh I'm aware of that. You think I'm not going to break a few laws of physics?
I've already said "F*ck it" to two of them. xD
That helps a lot.
I'll get on that.
Ask Thomas Fitzpatrick. He might be able to do it but only if he has a few drinks first....
Here's a 777 test:
and a story of an F-15 that landed with only one wing:
I knew a guy that pulled 12Gs. The airplane was structurally damaged but it didn't break apart. I don't remember if it flew again.
Was this by chance an A-7?
who also knows a guy...
This might be a combination of too many Gs and VNE.
The photos in that report don't show the wrinkled wings.
edit: and if you are going to do something like that, make sure the checklist you have is NOT the one that has the last item of the "Shutdown" section saying "Pajamas..As Req." unless you really want to read that part in the NTSB report.
I have no first hand knowledge, but have heard of a Grumman AA? landing with such a great vertical speed, that it killed the pilot.
The airplane was perfectly okay.
When I was flying a KA200 in the early 80's, another 200 came into Flightcraft at Boeing Field. Both wings were bent and the airplane was hastily locked away in a hangar...........never to be seen again.
About a month later the crew was flying a new 300.
I know of an AA-1 at KPAE (way back in the '80s) that landed so hard it left skid marks from the tires on the underside of the wing...
Also there's this. - https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employme...ev_id=20001212X20121&ntsbno=LAX00LA035&akey=1
"The outboard 1/3 of the aircraft's left wing was deformed upward about 5 degrees with respect to the inboard section during an encounter with wake turbulence while on downwind leg for landing. The upper wing skins of both wings exhibited compression buckling, and the mass balance weights on both ailerons were separated and fell from the aircraft."
I remember in John Monroe "Hawk" Smith's book he was fighting Joe "Hoser" Satrapa and Joe overstressed his Tomcat to avoid a kill. Forget how many Gs though.
May very well be a Tomcat Cooter is referring to; however, the 12 g's rings a bell in my dim light attack memory.
and his pleasing crescent shape
I think you mean DEcrease the turning radius(or increase the rate of turn)
Thanks, yes you are correct. I had brain fart.
I wanted to inform you that most of the prologue/backgrounds/characters/setting/plot/dialogue is now done. Your input was extraordinary helpful. Thank you.
I only have minor questions now. Most of which concern proper terminology. reports I read on flight protocols refer to the control tower as ether "flight command" " "control tower" or "tower". Which one would be the proper term when communicating with them?
i think this may be an interesting question. (I planned on making an entire new post dedicated to this question, but I had no idea where to put it.)
What would be your ideal dream plane?
If you could design your own tactical jet, with limitations being nonexistent.
What would it be?
model: list a similar model plane you would want it designed after.
Specs: what specifications you would desire. Weight/thrust/etc.
Tower would go by the name of the field or if military, name of the base. Example, "Gillespie Tower" or "Miramar Tower."
Thank you, I'll write that in my notes.