-G lead shots ...

[thorsim]

seems unlikely, they were gas ejected iirc

then traveled a bit "down" some sort of ejection tube from gun chamber to skin exterior right?

when down is up i foresee problems ...

[grizz441]

Sometimes, but not EVERY time.  Some of the pilots I've engaged lately are using a sustained, severe negative G maneuver as their first line of defense, which most definitely lends an air of the surreal to the engagement.  While there were a lot of things I didn't like about WWIIOL - or the pilot fatigue model they used - I'm beginning to believe that I might welcome something similar here to keep some pilots a bit more "honest" when it comes to negative G maneuvers.  A 2 second 450 mph transition (it's of much too long of a duration to call it a "bunt") from horizontal to near vertical followed by a half roll and a near max G turn out is not something you'd ever want to do for real.   But here...

<S>
 

We get fresh planes and fresh pilots every sortie though, so why does it matter if our pilots are rtbing with their eye balls hanging out of their heads and their wings' structural integrity compromised?  

[Sol75]

Sometimes, but not EVERY time.  Some of the pilots I've engaged lately are using a sustained, severe negative G maneuver as their first line of defense, which most definitely lends an air of the surreal to the engagement.  While there were a lot of things I didn't like about WWIIOL - or the pilot fatigue model they used - I'm beginning to believe that I might welcome something similar here to keep some pilots a bit more "honest" when it comes to negative G maneuvers.  A 2 second 450 mph transition (it's of much too long of a duration to call it a "bunt") from horizontal to near vertical followed by a half roll and a near max G turn out is not something you'd ever want to do for real.   But here...

<S>
 

Not entirely true...
I have, during some of my aerobatic instruction i got prior to buying my airplane, did a "rolling eight sided loop" wherein you start out level, pull to 45, roll 180, push to 90 (vert) roll, pull to 45 up line, roll push to level, roll pull to 45 downline, roll and push to 90 downline, roll pull to 45 downline, roll again, push to level, then roll upright after completing the maneuver.  Uncomfortable? absolutely, doable, yep, did it several times with the instructor, and a few times solo so far.  I wills ay it is one of the most disorienting maneuvers I learned, but as I said before, with practice, that goes away to a large degree.  And we cannot model practice in AH w/o some kind of pilot stats.

Edit.. added a diagram for better reference


Basically this is the maneuver.  This is a simple 8 sided loop diagram, but it works to describe the moves.  You basically perform this manuever as diagrammed, but add a 180 degree roll on each "straight" segment.

Sol
 

[MORAY37]

I've been to over -2G R/L...eyes are fine.  The guys flying acro go well over -2G, they land okay so have to assume the eyes are okay.

Hey, I'm just quoting the flight medicine.  At -2 G on the Z axis, (meaning force is going through pilot from foot to head, more or less) capillaries start bursting with sustained time under the applied force.  By -3 sustained, the pilot can enter red-out at any time.  I didn't do the work, just telling you what the work is.

Again, the NASA certified flight maximums.  You should be focusing on +Gz and -Gz

Time (min)   +Gx   -Gx  +Gz   -Gz
.01 (<1 sec)   35   28   18   8
.03 (2 sec)   28   22   14   7
.1               20   17   11   5
.3               15   12   9   4.5
1                 11   9   7   3.3
3                  9   8   6   2.5
10                6   5   4.5   2
30             4.5   4   3.5   1.8

What little information I can find on the structural limits of Luftwaffe WW2 aircraft, the 109F4 had the best G info.... at +7 @ 360mph / -4 @ 310 mph  on the airframe.

[Ack-Ack]

As far as the "Neg G pushover" it does cause a warp for me on my end, which I think Im not the only one

This is how those idiotic AH urban myths start...


ack-ack

[Yeager]

negative G shots and brass jamming in the ejection parts is a non issue for me.  If HT wants to go through the trouble (for near zero payoff) then go for it.  Might as well build in random gun jams to piss EVERYONE off and out of the game. 

I would rather have an SE5a or Albatross added to the new 4 plane WW1 set.

[JunkyII]

This is how those idiotic AH urban myths start...


ack-ack

How? By someone speaking truth about what they look like on their end? I hope Im not the only one with this problem, because that means something with my system is jacked up.

[thorsim]

negative G shots and brass jamming in the ejection parts is a non issue for me.  If HT wants to go through the trouble (for near zero payoff) then go for it.  Might as well build in random gun jams to piss EVERYONE off and out of the game. 

I would rather have an SE5a or Albatross added to the new 4 plane WW1 set.

can't argue there, not modeling failures is a good policy, i will just be frustrated in the game ...

[Spikes]

When I find one of those circle jerkin 190s running on the deck I just slow down so I'm 400 behind em, then hold my trigger down until they circle jerk up into my LOF and kill them self.

[Ghastly]

Not entirely true...
I have, during some of my aerobatic instruction i got prior to buying my airplane, did a "rolling eight sided loop" wherein you start out level, pull to 45, roll 180, push to 90 (vert) roll, pull to 45 up line, roll push to level, roll pull to 45 downline, roll and push to 90 downline, roll pull to 45 downline, roll again, push to level, then roll upright after completing the maneuver.  Uncomfortable? absolutely, doable, yep, did it several times with the instructor, and a few times solo so far.  I wills ay it is one of the most disorienting maneuvers I learned, but as I said before, with practice, that goes away to a large degree.  And we cannot model practice in AH w/o some kind of pilot stats.

Edit.. added a diagram for better reference
(Image removed from quote.)

Basically this is the maneuver.  This is a simple 8 sided loop diagram, but it works to describe the moves.  You basically perform this manuever as diagrammed, but add a 180 degree roll on each "straight" segment.

Sol
 

But even with practice, do you really think a pilot could continue to fight an engagement if their first move was a full redout pushover going from horizontal to vertical in a period of 2 seconds or less, followed by a 90 degree roll and what appears to be a 6+ G pullout? 

Can one of you guys who know the formula's calculate for me how many G's would be generated by an aircraft making a 90 degree turn in 2 seconds at 450 mph? 

<S>

[RufusLeaking]

Can one of you guys who know the formula's calculate for me how many G's would be generated by an aircraft making a 90 degree turn in 2 seconds at 450 mph?  

Here is my shot at the calculation:

Velocity (V) = 450 mph = 660 fps

90 degrees (Theta) = Pi/2 radians = 1.570796 radians

Time (t) = 2 seconds


Centrifugal force is Mass times Angular Velocity squared times Radius.

Angular velocity (w) = Theta/t = 0.785398 radians/sec

Radius is determined by the distance traveled at 660 fps in 2 seconds and setting that equal to a 90 degree (Pi/2 radian) arc.

Radius (r) = V * t / Theta = 840.338 ft.

Force is mass times acceleration.  To get acceleration out of the Centrifugal force, we can drop mass and be left with Angular Velocity squared times Radius.

Acceleration (a) = w² * r = 518.36 ft/s²

Gravity (G) = 32.2 ft/s²

a = 16.1 Gs

Which seems extremely high.  Which is why I am posting this to see if anyone can point out mistakes.

[Ghastly]

I dusted off the books, and got the same answer.

I need to find and review the film of the engagement, as you (clearly) cannot pull -15.1 G's in a Tempest without ripping the wings off.   (We have to subtract 1 G because he was heading toward the big round ball of dirt ...)

<S>

[colmbo]

I dusted off the books, and got the same answer.

Kind of makes you wonder if the 450mph or the 2 seconds is accurate.  I'm guessing no since it's difficult to accurately determine what the other guy is doing.

[Sol75]

But even with practice, do you really think a pilot could continue to fight an engagement if their first move was a full redout pushover going from horizontal to vertical in a period of 2 seconds or less, followed by a 90 degree roll and what appears to be a 6+ G pullout? 

Can one of you guys who know the formula's calculate for me how many G's would be generated by an aircraft making a 90 degree turn in 2 seconds at 450 mph? 

<S>

Quite true, DURATION of G's has a large impact.  During those "corners" on the rolling stop sign, (8 sided loop) it is easy to hit -4 to -5 G's, but then again, we are talking for a VERY breif period of time, less than 1 second...If they are  pushing to a full redout then yanking to a near blackout state, pilot fatigue and cumulative G effects would certainly come into play, I was simply basing my opinion on what I know to be true, having experienced it.  I was not aware we were talking a full redout push, to a near blackout pull.  THAT would play havoc on a pilot I should think.  I haven't seen this kind of maneuver used in the MA very often.. since most of the -g pushes I see are more of a "bunt" type, similar to the -G push used in the rolling stop sign, a rapid application of max -g for a very brief time.

Sol

Sol