Why don't you fly aerobatics?

Why don't you fly aerobatics?

  • I do

    Votes: 33 26.4%
  • It simply doesn't interest me

    Votes: 25 20.0%
  • I'm afraid I'll get sick

    Votes: 8 6.4%
  • It's too expensive

    Votes: 23 18.4%
  • There is no training available around here

    Votes: 25 20.0%
  • It's not safe

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • I just don't know how to get started

    Votes: 10 8.0%

  • Total voters
    125
I've flown the S-2A and a Giles 202, and from what I remember neither have a very high G-onset rate, at least not > 6 G/sec.. Could be wrong though, and I'd be interested to see that number if anyone has it.. I googled, but no luck.

The S2A is limited to +6 so you won't see much there. I believe the 202 is limited to +/- 10, so snap rolls can create what I would call a high g onset rate but it doesn't last long. I've seen +7/-5 in snaps inside and out, but you've just got to hang on for a few seconds.

I've always thought the punishing thing about the fighter g's was how long they lasted, not the rapid onset. A sustained 7 or 8 G pull while you're looking over your shoulder would hurt. On the other hand, the positive then negative then positive g's that the airshow folks do is very punishing. I suppose it goes back to being trained and conditioned to do what you do.
 
The S2A is limited to +6 so you won't see much there. I believe the 202 is limited to +/- 10, so snap rolls can create what I would call a high g onset rate but it doesn't last long. I've seen +7/-5 in snaps inside and out, but you've just got to hang on for a few seconds.

It's been several years since I've flown either, but it just seems like the -38 and T-6, while pulling fewer Gs, would get to the G much quicker than those aircraft.

I've always thought the punishing thing about the fighter g's was how long they lasted, not the rapid onset.
It's both. With a rapid onset, you have to be on your AGSM more quickly and then hold it for extended periods of time.

A sustained 7 or 8 G pull while you're looking over your shoulder would hurt. On the other hand, the positive then negative then positive g's that the airshow folks do is very punishing. I suppose it goes back to being trained and conditioned to do what you do.
The aerospace physiologist guys taught us that going from positive to negative G effectively cuts your G tolerance in half due to the blood pressure dump.

For the F-16, we have to do a centrifuge training profile that looks like this:

Resting G tolerance - 0.1 g/sec onset to our resting G tolerance (no straining or g-suit inflation) defined by complete peripheral light loss. I cut mine short at 5.3 Gs so I wouldn't wear myself out, but I think I've got about 5.5-5.8.

6 G for 30 second - 6 G/sec onset rate

9 Gs for 15 seconds - 6 G/sec onset

7 G for 10 second check six - look over your shoulder and pull 7 Gs

ACM profile - It's a simulated dogfight with peaks and valleys where you chase an F-14... For the viper, it's supposed to be 9 for 10, 8 for 10, 7 for 10, and then 9 for 10 with short breaks in between each peak (the whole profile is 90 seconds).. The crappy part is that the fuge is very sensitive and prone to g-overshoots.. I ended up doing 9.3 for 10 for every peak.. that sucked.

When I did the T-38 fuge profile, there was a set where we had a lower G onset (like 2-4 or something)... That felt more like the Pitts/Giles.. I just seem to remember that the T-38 would hurt you with a rapid onset, more than I had experienced in any other aircraft, despite the lower G.

The disclaimer here is that the fuge is nothing like a real aircraft, and much more punishing. It sucks.
 
Last edited:
Question re: smoking and aerobatics...
Of course I'll be quitting any day now ( :rofl: ), but I'm curious about whether or not the effect of smoking (not the nicotine, the smoke) on oxygen saturation in the blood wouldn't put you at a disadvantage... what say the crusty old fighter jocks (who smoke) about that?

Not sure if it's been proven, but from my FAA reading I recall an assertion that smoking, in effect, simulates effects on the body at altitude and can exacerbate things like diminished night vision... seems to me that it could affect gee tolerance, as well, because without sufficient oxygen, those carbs won't do much good (I'm assuming no supplemental oxygen).
 
Question re: smoking and aerobatics...
Of course I'll be quitting any day now ( :rofl: ), but I'm curious about whether or not the effect of smoking (not the nicotine, the smoke) on oxygen saturation in the blood wouldn't put you at a disadvantage... what say the crusty old fighter jocks (who smoke) about that?

Not many people smoke anymore.. That's kind of a dead habit in the air force among fliers.. a lot still dip though..

Not sure if it's been proven, but from my FAA reading I recall an assertion that smoking, in effect, simulates effects on the body at altitude and can exacerbate things like diminished night vision... seems to me that it could affect gee tolerance, as well, because without sufficient oxygen, those carbs won't do much good (I'm assuming no supplemental oxygen).

Gets your blood pressure up, so g tolerance - not really.. Hypoxia, yeah, but you're still on an O2 system, and a lot of fighter guys (including this one) go 100% O2 before an engagement.
 
Back
Top