Yes, I know.But you do understand that after such flights, the glider may become unusable.
That isn’t always true, if the airframe is fresh it would be able to do this somewhat often. The Gripen for example can pull 12Gs without issues, but requires an inspection after the flight to verify it is still good to go.
2 Likes
No, the hornet has a 7.5G limit for a reason. Exceeding the overload by 1.33 times requires careful inspection. And possibly write-offs. Grippen should not be compared to delta canard. They can pull both 12 and 14G. Features of the scheme.Although the MiG-29 had excessive strength.Therefore, the wing was almost impossible to break
1 Like
The Hornet is resistant to damage even up to 10G, I don’t think the airframes are being written off. If you don’t agree then I’d prefer we provide sources or drop it.
Yes, the MiG-29 wing is quite strong.
Airframe F-18 is made for 9G + safety limit ( I think it’s 1,5…off the top of my head I don’t know exactly).
The Navy has the operation set up so that the 7.5G limit saves airframe stress and therefore money.
Yes, the safety factor is 1.5. I think the Soviet /Russian one is 1.3, right?
Gripen has a 9G soft limit
F-15 has a soft limit of 9G, I have cases of 12,5G and similar - fuselage was checked and the plane kept flying.
7.5×1.5=11.25
Even if we take into account that the calculated overload is 8.5G.Then 10G does not pass without a trace
Its 9 + 1,5, no 7,5 + 1,5
7,5G is maritime artificial limitation because it saves money
2 Likes
1.5-2.0
Heavy and expensive
Usually, the calculated overload is taken by 1 more than the operational one.
I don’t know for the F-15.But for the MiG-29 they took 10.Well, they overdid it with a margin of safety because of this, the plane came out heavier than necessary
1 Like
Depending on the type of aircraft.But for fighters it’s always 1.5
2 Likes
The original F-15 has a 7.33G +1.5 safety factor. But it wasn’t a hard limit and pilots often go to 9G and above. The only way to tell how much G a pilot had was to look at the HUD or G meter on the instrument panel. It got more expensive to operate, wings wore out, replaced, etc. An OWS system was introduced to audibly alert the pilot as to how many G’s he currently had. Doesn’t prevent going over 10G, that’s up to the pilot.
10 G ?
10g×1.5
1 Like
Aircraft break down sometimes even below the safety limit, age, accumulated overloading, etc. In games this is not the case.
Su 27 Flanker B is 9+ 1,5 or due to his size the safety factor is less ?
Imagine posting posting blatant BS and then getting upset when you get called out about it.
1 Like
No, even MiG-23M has 1.5x factor.
1 Like
You mean the J-20B you swore does not exist?
Look dude, you are clueless, everything you say is made up to some degree or another. You are not smart enough to simply crosscheck your ideas before you spew them on the forum. All you do is spread garbage & unnecessary arguments.
I do not care what you do to cope with reality. Do what you need to come to terms with the truth. But stop pinging me to feel a better about your ignorance.
The J-20B exist. You swore no such variant. It’s has thrust vectoring. It’s supermaneuverable.
Thrust vectoring is a technology of supermaneuvrability. The very definition of it.
Supermaneuvrability is the capability of fighter aircraft to execute tactical maneuvers that are not possible with purely aerodynamic techniques. Such maneuvers can involve controlled side-slipping or angles of attack beyond maximum lift.
No one cares about the Abrams, it’s another heavily overrated American vehicle due to Pop Culture. That is why people are shocked its trash in WT. It has nothing to do with the Su-27, its aerodynamic design & its supermaneuvrability
Stop derailing the topic.
1 Like