News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold by sandworm101 on Saturday January 02, 2021 @06:09PM (#25617510)
Not exactly. There are penty of aerodynamic limitations outside of the pilot. Aircraft might be able to pull a few more gs in some very contrived circumstances, but a pilotless fighter would not be an aerodynamic superman. for instance: Stall/flow separation speeds at paticular wing loadings are often well below the pilot's physical G limitations.
Re:Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold by landryraccoon on Saturday January 02, 2021 @06:12PM (#25617543)
How much of that is because engineers designed with those limitations in mind?

Nobody has attempted to push what is possible with material science and aerodynamics because there is no point if the pilot wouldn't be able to handle the forces involved. With automation, those limitations no longer apply.

For an example of what I'm thinking of, look at air to air missiles. Sidewinder air-to-air missiles achieve an acceleration of 20g, far more than a human pilot can withstand. Drones in the air superiority role could likewise be designed more like larger, more advanced missiles than traditional aircraft.

I suspect that if engineers design combat aircraft to be pilotless, you'll soon see them executing maneuvers that would be far too punishing if the craft had to support a human pilot.

Re:Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold by sandworm101 on Saturday January 02, 2021 @06:20PM (#25617618)
I mean to say that such limits exist without regard to the pilot, that there is no way around them. Pulling 9+ Gs, trying to sustain that for more than a second or two, isnt really possible in the vast majority of situations. The air is only so thick at a given altitude. The wings can only be so big before structural issues dominate.

And remember too that the whole dogfighting concept, the getting behind the other guy for a tail shot, means less and less in a world of all-aspect missiles that can fire in almost any direction.

Re:Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold by stouset on Saturday January 02, 2021 @07:58PM (#25618306)
ITT: people who put way too much faith in how planes fly in movies.

High-G maneuvers just are not a wildly important part of aircraft operations. Despite what you see in movies, high-G maneuvers aren’t what defeat radar-guided missiles and they’re not the bread and butter of dogfights either (which are all but a thing of the past).

They sure do look good at airshows though.

At the end of the day, if you’re a bomb or missile truck, you’re simply not going to outmaneuver a solitary missile that can perform 20G turns. You’re vastly better off minimizing your radar signature and taking out enemy radar sources using SEAD, at which point you can fly with impunity.

Re:Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold by chipsa on Sunday January 03, 2021 @07:15AM (#25621342)
No, it's because the engineers have to balance structure weight versus everything else. F-15As are G limited to 7.3G. The Cs are limited to that same amount at altitude. F-18s were limited to 7.5G as well. And both of those are with "clean" aircraft. Start putting munitions and external fuel on, and that limit starts going down, because they wings have more weight to withstand.
Re:Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold by nradov on Saturday January 02, 2021 @07:18PM (#25618053)
Nonsense. The compressor will stall.