I have done no finite element analisys on any of the planes mentioned, so there's no way of knowing, really.

 

Why is everybody so intent on putting data here for which there is no means of verification and being so c%cksure about it? Why should I believe such stuff on the basis of "Some guy on the internet said so"?

 

 

Sustained turns are more dangerous to the pilot than instantaneous ones . Being able to put the aircraft 's nose where the target is very quickly (crab slide) avoids taking the Gs and getting the kill .

The M2000 was and still very good at it but the Rafale is the new benchmark .

 

Cheers .

I have done no finite element analisys on any of the planes mentioned, so there's no way of knowing, really.

Why is everybody so intent on putting data here for which there is no means of verification and being so c%cksure about it? Why should I believe such stuff on the basis of "Some guy on the internet said so"?

You choose what you want to believe, who you want to trust. The main necessity here is that no one lacks respect toward others.

Claiming absolute negative BS against Rafale because BW and FS have been boring with very positive opinions about Rafale is stupid too.

Insulting the others because "they are wrong while i'm right" is stupid too.

 You're free to choose.

Another thing i may want you to believe, since i trust the guy who told me this for obvious reasons :

Dassault has been working a 90hPa "Combat-Edge"-like equipment to make Rafale pilots capable of sustaining 11G so as to increase their survivability in case of emergency as well as for combat. This equipement finally was not adopted because it was not confortable (temperature).

The true software limit on Rafale is... 8G (Gs and G-onset are limited to protect the backseater). Once you pull stronger on the stick, you're free up to 11G, but pilots  usually do not exceed 9G, which is usually enough, and already extremely demanding.

 The BW claims about 10 to 11G in demonstration surprise me, but i can't deny them.

Claiming that new gen aircraft will fail above 9G is stupid, or just jealousy. Why would the Libelle G-suit could help a pilot in sustaining 12G if the aircraft can't do it ?

G onset like any other g datas is measured by m/sec2 = g.

 

At Edward AFB its is computed using the following datas:

 

2.300 ft geometric altitude and 32.136 ft/sec2 g value.

 

As everyone writing on the subject should know, gravity varies with altitude but also geographic location with noticeable variations ranging from, 0.26 to - 0.27.

 

  As i have spent some time at BA-102 myself, knows its location (as well as that of the video meeting and aircraft type bases, btw not Dijon-based 5F but 2000DA) I can certify that local g values are within these parameters.

 

  Much the same way, i can safely assume that Maximum load values are perfectly valid in this particular case...

 

  The amount of g pulled here is below the level requiered to cause structural damages to the airframe by at least two units.

 

Regards, PlG

 

You insist in spelling it wrongly and trying to lecture people who are well aware of what g onset is as well as knowing what you don't know about gs...

 

So please try again: How to compute g onset: m/sec2 = g.

 

And if you whant to be very precise about it you WILL use the local geometric altitude, g values, heading, speed  because it variates enough from one geolocation to the other as  to make such a difference at every levels (including design) that lifes can be put at risk.

 

Aeronautic is as much as possible a precise science and next chaper is about effect of heading on drag coefficient.

 

So please do not serve me g onsets as my little resume m/sec2 = g. (very much simplified i'm afraid) is all you need to do to compute it at your level.

 

  Source is:

 

Technical Information Handbook.

 

Air Force Flight Test Center, Edward Air Force Base Edition 2000 updated 2003. 

 

I think it is available for public use these days.

 

Regards, PlG

 

 

 

What are you mumbling about?  What is it with BW and apparently you, too, that you two appear driven to try to have some sort of googled-up response to every post, like you are trying to demonstrate you "knew that all along" or something.  By the way, that's an interesting point about how the force of gravity varies over the Earth's surface.  I had forgotten about that fact, but you're absolutely right that it does change slightly.  But if your comment meant that gravitational force experienced here on Earth's surface varies in the range 0.73G to 1.26G, I say that's way off, and I'd bet the fluctuation is more like 0.999G to 1.001G at most.  In any event, it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

G onset rate is the rate at which you change your load factor, i.e., Gs.  For example, yanking the stick back into your lap and piling on 6Gs very quickly, like within a couple tenths of a second, can easily be more likely to cause GLOC than pulling the stick back over the course of a couple seconds and slowly building up to 8Gs.