A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Can F-15s making 9G turns with payload?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 17th 03, 11:45 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can F-15s making 9G turns with payload?

In message , Hobo
writes

At http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...craft/f-15i/F-
15I.html I found this quote:

"Among other elements tested were the plane's performance at speeds
greater than Mach 2, and at maximum maneuver load at 9g."

I thought that F-15s can only make 7G turns and that they can only make
3G turns with a bomb load or the bombs tear off the mounts. What is the
correct information on these subjects?


Classified, so I don't know.

Open-source suggest a ~7.5G limit on clean Eagles armed air/air (that's
a _lot_ of turn for a big-winged big-engined fighter like the F-15).
Strike loads will be a lot lower and 3G is low but not incredible (if
you have to yank-and-bank you jettison your bombs: it's a relatively
recent idea that you fight through and press on)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Ads
  #2  
Old September 18th 03, 12:54 AM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:45:35 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Hobo
writes

At http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...craft/f-15i/F-
15I.html I found this quote:

"Among other elements tested were the plane's performance at speeds
greater than Mach 2, and at maximum maneuver load at 9g."

I thought that F-15s can only make 7G turns and that they can only make
3G turns with a bomb load or the bombs tear off the mounts. What is the
correct information on these subjects?


Classified, so I don't know.

Open-source suggest a ~7.5G limit on clean Eagles armed air/air (that's
a _lot_ of turn for a big-winged big-engined fighter like the F-15).
Strike loads will be a lot lower and 3G is low but not incredible (if
you have to yank-and-bank you jettison your bombs: it's a relatively
recent idea that you fight through and press on)



I've read in several places that the Es are stressed for 9gs, not the
previous 7.5.
  #3  
Old September 18th 03, 03:43 AM
AL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

IIRC that is for a clean E.

Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:45:35 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:




I've read in several places that the Es are stressed for 9gs, not the
previous 7.5.



--
AL
New anti-terrorism tool, "Fly naked"
http://www.alfredivy.per.sg


  #4  
Old September 18th 03, 03:49 AM
Walt BJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Info sounds odd to me. 7.5 G is a standard operating limit for USAF
fighters. The F16's 9G in non-standard. Both limits offer a 1.5 safety
factor. Again, standard. 3G limit for carrying bombs is awfully low.
We used 4G as a standard pull-out in the F4, 5g if we were pressing
for greater accuracy. I managed to pull 8 once in an extremity (we
were getting hosed) and nothing fell off. Continued with the mission
and the rest of the bombs came off as designed. As for the 15
sustaining 9G, I shouldn't wonder, considering the excess power the
aircraft has and also that no altitude was mentioned. I do know from
personal experience that at sea level the F104A and the F4 would
sustain 7G at 500KIAS as long as the fuel lasted (or the crew). The
F15 has a lot more excess power than either of those aircraft.
Walt BJ
  #5  
Old September 18th 03, 04:59 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Walt BJ wrote:

Info sounds odd to me. 7.5 G is a standard operating limit for USAF
fighters. The F16's 9G in non-standard. Both limits offer a 1.5 safety
factor.


The F-15A/B had a +7.33G limit. The F-15C/D was given an overload warning
system that allows it to "maneuver safely to the 9G limit of the airframe
at all design gross weights", or so Dennis Jenkins writes in the Warbirds
Tech Manual for the F-15. At least some F-15As were modified to allow
them to do the same; ISTR this may have involved some minor airframe
strengthening.

Again, standard. 3G limit for carrying bombs is awfully low.
We used 4G as a standard pull-out in the F4, 5g if we were pressing
for greater accuracy.


ISTR that the F-15's MER-200s were designed for +7.33G max., while the
previous generation's (i.e. your F-4) were designed for 5G. I couldn't
say what the CFTs were rated at.

Guy




  #8  
Old September 18th 03, 03:22 PM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:47:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

(Walt BJ) wrote:


We used 4G as a standard pull-out in the F4, 5g if we were pressing
for greater accuracy. I managed to pull 8 once in an extremity (we
were getting hosed) and nothing fell off.


Got this among a list of quotes from a reasonably erudite fighter
pilot:

"The aircraft G-limits are only there in case there is another flight
by that particular airplane. If subsequent flights do not appear
likely, there are no G-limits."

Makes a lot of sense to me.




REad of a Skyray pulling 12 Gs and wrinked the wing. Don't know if it
ever flew again. And also of a Tomcat that did a NEGATIVE 8+ (they
didn't have a choice). I think the Tomcat flew again.
  #9  
Old September 18th 03, 08:20 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Josť Herculano" wrote:

Maximum I read regarding the Phantom was a guy in Vietnam pulling 14 G to
get an ass-SAM divergence. The bird held and landed.


I know there were a couple of cases in Vietnam where F-4s made hard
enough turns to rip the ECM pods off...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #10  
Old September 18th 03, 09:40 PM
Peter Kemp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:03:03 +0100, "Josť Herculano"
wrote:

"The aircraft G-limits are only there in case there is another flight
by that particular airplane. If subsequent flights do not appear
likely, there are no G-limits."


Maximum I read regarding the Phantom was a guy in Vietnam pulling 14 G to
get an ass-SAM divergence. The bird held and landed. An Argentinian 707
shadowing the British fleet pulled 7 G to avoid a couple of Sea Dart
missiles. She too landed.


The second claim is incorrect. No Sea Dart missiles were ever launched
at the shadowing aircraft. by a British vessel, although at one point
they nearly did, before identifying the aircraft as (IIRC) a Brazilian
charter flight.

Peter Kemp
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Making your own canopy c hinds Home Built 6 November 22nd 04 09:10 AM
Why is a standard hold right turns? Roy Smith Instrument Flight Rules 51 August 28th 04 06:09 PM
need advice with composite for making glare shield bubba Home Built 1 July 7th 04 05:44 AM
Making my landing gear Lou Parker Home Built 8 March 31st 04 10:34 PM
Air Force launches rocket with secret military payload from Cape Canaveral Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 9th 03 09:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.