Considering the conditions it is not unthinkable that one can obviously not have noticed he pulled 11.5 g rather that 11.

  I'll pass the lecture on maximum structural g loads, you guys still miss the point big time...

I'd argue that using Red Bull aircraft as a comparison is hardly accurate as the aircraft are designed for continual high g stressing,

  Well this must be the quote of the year.

  Manufacturers the world over are fighting about Max sustained turn rates and you vcame up over here telling us that they do not design the most agile dogfighter to sustain these?

  Allow me to laugh, as for RebBull aircrafts some of the pilot pulling 11g publicly, your guys notions on the margins is to say the least lacking.

I cannot see why everybody gets so up in arms when someone claims one parameter of another airplane is better than the F35 or F22. I really don't see the huge issues here or the reason for all the emotion.

 You cannot see what you don't look for...

  For F-35 like for Dassault aircrafts you have NO idea....

  For a starter I posted the link to an article containing an interview explaining to you that load designed factors can be uppered or lowered for diverse reasons and are not the same from one manufacturer or one aircraft to another...

 Here is a quote from one of the Typhoon design team managers which goes some way to prove this.

 "The ability of carefree handling to control g limits precisely has allowed designers to reduce the ultimate load factor to 1.4, from the normal 1.5, resulting in a lighter aircraft. The airframe is designed for a 6,000h life".

 link

 This negates your "I don?t see point" once.

  Second about F-35 another one you do not know about:

 "The concept of cousin parts has been maintained ? the 7g-stressed F-35B may have thinner, lighter bulkheads than the carrier-capable F-35C or 9g-capable F-35A, but the difference is not visible, says Williams".

 link

  You mighyt not like it but F-35 load factor is lower than most.

   This negates your "I don?t see point" for the second time.

Problem is the airframe failed long before that, because the airframe failed when the material stresses passed the yield point.

  Which material? Aluminium?

  Do you know the details of the aircraft material design?

 As far as I am concerned you try to imply the lowest possible standard to apply to the manufacturer of the aircraft which have proven time and time again that their load factors were higher than the international standard of 1.5.

   Nice try but not good enough, you'd be better off informing yourself on the real, disclosed politico-industrial histories of the aircraft you mentioned because details are known that you obviously are not aware of.

Regards, PlG

warpig

Expressed as a PERCENTAGE of the nominal value of 9.8m/s2, or 1G.  In other words, they vary up and down from 9.8m/s2 by at most +0.26% and -0.27%.

  SO? Where so I say otherwise? brainiac,?

warpig

G onset rate is the rate of change of acceleration, and not just acceleration

 What part of /sec didn?t you understand?

OMG!  You are more obnoxious than BW and FS combined!  I predict you definitely will not be on this website much longer.  People who show up only to post argumentative post after argumentative post fit the definition of troll, and are soon banned.

At no time while bringing up G onset rates have I been talking about the effect of G loads on airframes.  You and BW made some comments about pilots coping with high G loads, and about instantaneous turn rates and pointing the nose while avoiding high Gs.  I pointed out the fact that GLOC is not only caused by sustaining too many Gs, but can also be caused by sustaining an onset rate of Gs that is too high even though the maximum G level never gets high enough to itself cause GLOC.  You proceeded to bring up some useless observation about how the units of acceleration are m/s2, how the value of G varies slightly around the globe and cited some numbers ("variations ranging from, 0.26 to -0.27") without any units or explanation of what you thought they mean, and something about the airframe.  Even though it added nothing of value to a discussion of pilots blacking out under high Gs or under high G rates, I tried to play along and decipher what your reference to 0.26 to -0.27 was supposed to mean, so I offered a guess as to what the fluctuation of G is around the globe.  Then I tried to clarify that I was talking about how fast the load factor is changing and its effect on the pilot.  You responded with more crap about the merits of typing "G onset" v. "g onset", a table showing values for gravity around the globe, appear to still think I'm talking about something to do with the airframe, and tell me the units of G onset are m/s2.  I read the table out of curiousity, saw that the numbers you cited were percentages, explained what that meant in terms of my previous posts and what it seemed to me you might be saying in yours, and proceeded to explain for the third time that I was talking about the effect of total Gs on the pilot and the effect of rapidly increasing the Gs on the pilot, and how a high onset rate can in itself cause loss of consciousness even if the maximum G never gets to the level that in itself would cause black out.  Oh, and I also pointed out that G onset rate--which is what I've been talking about this whole time, and which you have been responding to this whole time--units would actually be m/s3, not m/s2.  You responded by dodging away from the whole diversonary subject you started regarding the variation in the value of G around the globe, and completely missing yet again the implications of the difference between m/s2 and m/s3; what part of m/s3 don't you understand?  Here's yet another hint:  G by itself is an acceleration, not a rate of acceleration, whereas G onset rate is a rate of acceleration, and G onset rate could also be expressed in units of G/s as well as m/s3, but not as m/s2 or G (not that I really care, as my point is about its effects on the pilot, not what units to use, but you seem insistent on talking about it).  Finally you clearly demonstrate you still are completely lost as to what I have explained at least three times (four times counting this post) using different words and terminology each time in an attempt to make it clear to you, and say something about roll rates and "g onset" during rolls of "up to 15 g"--whatever that's supposed to mean, as clearly it is not experiencing 15G in any axis of motion--and somehow you extrapolate that to mean something about load factor in pitch (slyly weaving in Seagull's contribution regarding Rafale's flight control system--thank you Seagull for being the only Frenchman I've seen on StrategyPage in over six years who is knowledgable *and* makes useful, positive contributions).  You obviously still don't realize that "G onset rate" is a well-known term used in human factors studies and has been heavily researched for decades.  You are truly a great big peter.

Boy:

  Please stop taking your standards for universal and keep your familiarities for yourself.

  I perfectly know what I am writing and don?t need to you put down everything you recently read about it to try to make up you know it the slightest, if you did, all you could be able to say about it is that you have too little data to assume half of what you are writing.

You and BW made some comments about pilots coping with high G loads, and about instantaneous turn rates and pointing the nose while avoiding high Gs

 I don't need to avoid anything apart for confrontational flamers who have for last resort spin and personal attacks including on others nationalities.

  The little picture I posted for your education is crystal clear and reflect realities that your limited theotrical knowledge can't foresee, I thought you'd be smart enough to step on it and try to comprehend this but you aren?t.

  Before reaching any number of g there are a few parameters any aircraft will have to meet, and these are clearly explained to you in three axis.

  Your theory about g onset is physically INVALID and cannot be expressed otherwise than as a pick value, other than that it have to be experienced practically because as this matrix shows there are too many unknown i.e. aerodynamic like mechanical.

  Something you apparently cannot possibly know since it takes some degree of practical experience for the most advanced for it to really hit a nerve, reason why flight engineers are.... Flyers and you, not experienced enough to cut it.

  What you demonstrate is that you are writing about a subject you know too little about.

 I pointed out the fact that GLOC is not only caused by sustaining too many Gs, but can also be caused by sustaining an onset rate of Gs that is too high even though the maximum G level never gets high enough to itself cause GLOC. 

  Again this theory of you proves to be totally impractical especially in the case of an aircrafts such as the Mirage 2000:

  One doesn't reach any high onset rate g value instantaneously, I refer you AGAIN to the NASA classification framework on the subject of maneuverability instead of trying to explain it you you again which is a total waste of time.

  In practical terms high g onset values are the least of pilots physiological worries since they first rarely can reach their limits not only in terms of figures but also in terms of sustaining them.

  To reach a maximum g load in the best conditions, a modern aircraft will need less than a second which for a theotrical g onset pick value of 15 I WAY below what the crew can sustain and below a properly designed fighter maximum structural g load.

  Now, since you are missing at least 3 parameters out of the five needed to compute these values accurately over 3 axis, don?t come back on this unless you have the full set of data, for the time being you don't have a clue.

as clearly it is not experiencing 15G in any axis of motion

Still trying to make up you are the only one knowing about onset here?

  Boy, you're the one who is lost, when I write 15 g onset I know what it really means and I perfectly know what it doesn't mean too, but you on the other hand are trying have your cake and eat it, pretty obvious it wont happen since the FCS will prevent it in the first place and the Maximum g load reached before this.

  You on the pother hand are trying to imply these are physical true values when they aren't anything else than theorical picks.

 Come on admit it, I played with you and you got no idea what all of this is in practical terms.

Before lecturing people about g and g onsets it would be more than useful to have some practical experience of what they really mean and you clearly don?t...

  In short you are missing too many data to make any assumption based on g onsets alone.

  As for your personal attack they are only the evidence of your incapability to admit that you have no substantial arguments to oppose to the experience you are lacking by the bucket...

  Nice for your buddies to believe you understand what you write, I know you don?t.
 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

/civility off

  Taking people for stupid have never been civil manners, your lack of knowledge is backed up with a lack of education.

acrobatic aircraft are designed for sustained high stress maneuver jet powered combat aircraft typically have Frame Stress Alerts triggering at 7.5+G  The reason?

  Sorry mate, you are ignoring realities and typically give values which were valid for the generation of the Mirage IIIE.

  Progresses have been made in this industry at every levels including; design, materials, FCS engines, aircrew environment and you still write on this subject with data which look as if they have been extracted from the 60's handbook.

 Your understanding therefore of alerts built into planes is therefore more than amusing otherwise you would no they exist and when they're triggered.  

Alert built into a Mirage 2000 triggers at 9 g ONLY for the purpose of protecting the crew, not for the purpose of protecting the airframe, these gauges are set at 11 g, no less and BTW there is a g-meter which can also indicate the maxi pulled during a maneuver, a pilot will always know how may g he have been pulling by simply reading it.

  What your bunch are trying to do (and make a harsh mess of), is to make up that the video and comments by Bluewings aren't valid.

  For this purpose you attempt to rewrite every book in the industry including aerodynamics, mechanical and even advanced pilot handbooks.

  I won't mention all the evidences of your inaccurate assumption being wisely ignored, (as usual if I understand what the flamer?s drills  are in this forum) because the lowest standard you allege are standards are proven to be the lowest, NOT those of a Mirage 2000 or a Rafale, for many reasons in particular aerodynamic arrangements (delta wing plan) design and industrial (CATIA).

  We understand that reading that your favorite examples of "superior designs" being under industrial standards for the purpose of saving weight is bugging you, but it is no reason for inventing new standards and data computing procedures.

You need to get off Google and speak to someone who maintains aircraft, or someone who is familiar with such simple things as Frame Stress Alerts.

LOL! You need to serve your country (in any Airbase) and come back when you know what the most elementary basics about aerodynamics, flight mechanics and the rest.

  Anyone with this kind of experience can spot those who doesn't have it and so far you guys are the one who are googling with little idea about what you copy/paste.

Just because the alert triggers doesn't mean that the plane can't go beyond it - it's a precautionary alert and its there for a reason.  

 Another one who try to have his cake and eat it, as I said to your buddy it's either one or the other, as if it  was that simple, unfortunately its is just a tad more complex than that, I will come back to you later on these particulars.

if a french pilot tried to treat his rafale like a pitts special or a sukhoi acrobatic, I'm guessing that the maintainers  would be ripping him a new rectum for overriding or ignoring the alerts with gay abandon.

  Definitely, you have NO clue and keep guessing wrong.
 
 Mirages and Rafales are built with tolerances a Pitts S can only dream of since they are supersonic, have to carry more fuel in term of fraction, heavy external loads at up to high mach and this involves stress levels unknown from a Pitt, g aren?t the only source of structural stress taken in to account when one designs a fighter.
 
  Structurally also they have Maximum loads way above them, at least a good 4 g especially when one have to guaranty them for more than 7000 flight hours, but I have a question for you guys, how many times did you fly and during these experiences how many time did you go over anything like 3 g?

OOOOOOOOOOOPS.

  All of this fuss demonstrates the lowest leve of knowlege of the aerospacial industry, in particular of what is done eslwhere than in the US and even in the US itself.

  Try starting by the beggining instead of lecturing others on subject you dont fully comprehend yourself. Please.

Regards, PlG

"Seagull       

 G Lock happens if you try to sustain high G turns for too long, but also if you ask for a very rapid G onset".

  True, but FCS are set for limits of up to 15 g because in reality in NO flight scenario this would actually occur.

 Not necessarily considering the Typhoon have a lower Structural Maximum Load than most, this value reflect it perfectly, maxiomum g onset values aren't the equivalent to sustained g, they are a value for constant acceleration but represents theorical pick values not physical, sustained values.

Not precisely, there are techniques to cope with high g values and pilots have long learnt to use them, the problem with high onset values is that often they have too little time to prepare for it.

 In many case they simply forget to, accident reports are full of such example, a pilot can black out a much lower g values than 9.

Perhaps so but there is a difference between theories, laboratory conditions and combat conditions.

 What most of you doesn't realize is that the physiologic resistance to g of pilot is reduced by their level of stress and fatigue.

 Tyhoon g onset is ALSO a theorical pick value which would probably never been meet for as many reasons as there are topics in the maneuverability matrix Transient and Functional chapters.

In short, taken in isolation it only can be given as an indication of a theorical pick value.

To finish, you keep mentioning the example of the Rafale D which is a two seater, this means that the WSO will often have no idea what the pilot will do next expecially in combat, and face the very problem I have mentioned, lack of time to prepare himself for the maneuver.