Would it be possible to fly inside a city?

Wake Burns said:
Well our forums normally consist of questions instead of answers. So I feel like if such a thing happened, you'd come out more confused then anything.
It'd be like me coming to this website, and instead of seeing educative posts. It's just images filled with a bunch of crashed airliners.
Not very helpful.
Click to expand...
I know another pilot forum where that would happen
 
Rykymus said:
I write Sci Fi books for a living, and I'm a pilot. Still, I'm no where near qualified to answer your question. However, I can tell you what I do in such cases.

First, remember, it's Sci fi. It's the future. It doesn't necessarily have to conform to the current understanding of physics/aerodynamics, or be within the abilities of current technologies. Best thing to do is to create the abilities and limitations of whatever tech you are using, and stick within those parameters. Do not try to explain it, or justify it to the reader, unless it is absolutely necessary to the plot. And be vague how things work whenever possible, otherwise, some wise-ass will call you out for your errors. (Trust me, I know.)
Click to expand...
Oh I'm well aware.
However I always enjoy giving a Sci-Fi a bit of plausibility.
 
slacktide said:
Or ask a resident engineer - I ran the numbers for fun. Guesstimating a 160kt airspeed, to make a turn with an 80m radius (draw a diagram - that's the largest radius turn you can make in the intersection of 2 40m roads) you would need a bank angle of 83.5 deg and would pull 8.8Gs, so structurally it might be just barely capable. However, due to the G, the stall speed has increased by a factor of 3 (our author can google for "Accelerated Stall" if he wants an explanation), so no, there is no way to make a 90º turn in the width of a 40m roadway in a tactical jet.
Click to expand...
Well when you put it like that
you make it sound ridiculous. o_O
 
stratobee said:
To the OP. This is a tough forum for newcomers. They **** and **** on everyone. I know your question is genuine, so because I'm the only decent human being on this board, I'll answer:

No, it's not possible to turn in 40m, not even a Cub could do that. But if you make it a VTOL fighter that can slow down, then it could be done. Another scenario is: If you have very tall buildings, it's possible theoretically to do an Immelman-turn. Say he comes in slow and low, really slow, hits afterburners/max power and pulls the stick back and rolls out of inverted at the top. If the buildings around him are high enough, it's possible that could be done. Possible.

Something to keep in mind. In tight canyon turns and mountain flying, it is possible to trade altitude to increase the turning radius by descending heavily in the steep turn. That's why experienced mountain pilots fly as high as they can and to one side of the mountain/slope, never in the center, in case they come to a dead end and need to turn back.
Click to expand...
Well I got my answer. Thank you.
I'll look into that. I just drew a few sketches of what you depicted so I might end up using it.
 
I don't think we're taking Super maneuverability into the equation. The PAK-FA can turn inside its own skin. So many VMC violations in this demo I just don't know where to begin.

 
rtk11 said:
OK... am I the only one concerned here? I understand the OP is attempting to gather facts for a book (as stated), but the cynical side of me makes me wonder about more sinister reasons for understanding this information.
Click to expand...
What am I gonna do?
fact check you to death?
 
Wake Burns said:
What am I gonna do?
fact check you to death?
Click to expand...
Now there's an ability that could come in handy! :rofl:

By the way, some long-retired military pilots have told me that the proper term is "jet fighter," not "fighter jet." (I have no idea whether that's true for current military pilots.)

AOA = "angle of attack."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack

[Thus ends everything I know about this subject!]
 
Velocity173 said:
I don't think we're taking Super maneuverability into the equation. The PAK-FA can turn inside its own skin. So many VMC violations in this demo I just don't know where to begin.

Click to expand...
Palmpilot said:
Now there's an ability that could come in handy! :rofl:

By the way, some long-retired military pilots have told me that the proper term is "jet fighter," not "fighter jet." (I have no idea whether that's true for current military pilots.)

AOA = "angle of attack."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack

[Thus ends everything I know about this subject!]
Click to expand...
Noted*
 
Hypothetical question.
Could a tactical jet go Mach five without ripping itself to pieces mid-flight?
(Nevermind I found that out for myself)
 
Last edited:
Matthew said:
Just so I don't come off as too big a jerk: My daughter is a college professor in an English department and teaches various writing classes. Any writer that comes to this forum asking for technical advice is more than welcome and I will give as much help as possible, but will also give as much ribbing as I can muster.
Click to expand...
That's great!
Would you be willing to answer a few of my questions then?
 
Wake Burns said:
That's great!
Would you be willing to answer a few of my questions then?
Click to expand...
As much as I can - but more than likely I'd end up referring you to an expert or help you understand what questions you really need to ask. Depends on how detailed you need to get. As many an actor has said, "I don't really need to know how to do xyz, I just need to know how to act like I know."
 
This is a piece of cake. Pull straight up into a hammerhead in the middle of the intersection, do a 1/4 roll coming down. Of course, while you are at the low airspeed you will get shot down.

Ernie
 
ebetancourt said:
This is a piece of cake. Pull straight up into a hammerhead in the middle of the intersection, do a 1/4 roll coming down. Of course, while you are at the low airspeed you will get shot down.

Ernie
Click to expand...
Well I probably should have mentioned the buildings are Empire State Building tall skyscrapers. But that works.
 
I saw someone above mention 160 kts. The math works out to 82 meters/sec.

Any flying in the city isn't going to last long, even if a turn over an intersection could be made. Once you use up whatever energy you had by missing the building in front of you, you won't have a lot left to miss the next one.

And why would a fighter do that, unless chasing or being chased by, another aircraft? Now you have 2 airplanes trying to avoid buildings. Odds of that lasting more than a few seconds are probably going to be pretty small.
 
Ryanb said:
What's with these authors writing books on subjects that they have no knowledge of?
Click to expand...

Authors have a way with dealing with that issue. It's called research. The Star Trek books, interestingly, had been written by a person that has never been in a spacecraft.
 
Matthew said:
As much as I can - but more than likely I'd end up referring you to an expert or help you understand what questions you really need to ask. Depends on how detailed you need to get. As many an actor has said, "I don't really need to know how to do xyz, I just need to know how to act like I know."
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll be specific and detailed on what I enquirer. I'll ask one or two every so often. Don't make it two hard on you.

I wanted to know the (tensile strength) breaking point of a plane when it comes against G-forces. Like how much stress can you put an F-22 Raptor through until it structurally fails?
I know what I'm looking for, that being "maximum g-load", but the problem is whenever the plane can pull over 9 they never bother going any further.
They just list it as +9. Makes sense knowing pilots hardly ever pull more then that.
 
Last edited:
Sac Arrow said:
Authors have a way with dealing with that issue. It's called research. The Star Trek books, interestingly, had been written by a person that has never been in a spacecraft.
Click to expand...
Interesting comment on SF writers. Now and then I follow a blog of an author in that genre. He has a couple of rules. One of them is that you must "invent" some way to move faster than light. Otherwise, how interesting can a space travel story be if you never leave the solar system? Transporters, warp drives, hyper-space, Alderson drives, whatever. You need some way to move the action.
 
Matthew said:
I saw someone above mention 160 kts. The math works out to 82 meters/sec.

Any flying in the city isn't going to last long, even if a turn over an intersection could be made. Once you use up whatever energy you had by missing the building in front of you, you won't have a lot left to miss the next one.

And why would a fighter do that, unless chasing or being chased by, another aircraft? Now you have 2 airplanes trying to avoid buildings. Odds of that lasting more than a few seconds are probably going to be pretty small.
Click to expand...
I already have a lot written and drawn out, so i can assure you that there is a very good reason.
On top of that, this takes place in the future, so I'm sure I can fiddle with the planes dry thrust and weight to make it work.
 
Wake Burns said:
Okay, I'll be specific and detailed on what I enquirer. I'll ask one or two every so often. Don't make it two hard on you.

I wanted to know the (tensile strength) breaking point of a plane when it comes against G-forces. Like how much stress can you put a F-22 Raptor through until it structurally fails?
I know what I'm looking for, that being "maximum g-load", but the problem is whenever the plane can pull over 9 they never bother going any further.
They just list it as +9. Makes sense knowing pilots hardly ever pull more then that.
Click to expand...
I think the breaking point is 50% above the max g-load? Someone else can ring in on this. So an airplane with a 9g max will probably fail at 13.5g?

There are videos of structural tests where wings are weighted until they snap.
 
Matthew said:
Interesting comment on SF writers. Now and then I follow a blog of an author in that genre. He has a couple of rules. One of them is that you must "invent" some way to move faster than light. Otherwise, how interesting can a space travel story be if you never leave the solar system? Transporters, warp drives, hyper-space, Alderson drives, whatever. You need some way to move the action.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm aware of that. You think I'm not going to break a few laws of physics?
I've already said "F*ck it" to two of them. xD
 
Matthew said:
I think the breaking point is 50% above the max g-load? Someone else can ring in on this. So an airplane with a 9g max will probably fail at 13.5g?

There are videos of structural tests where wings are weighted until they snap.
Click to expand...
Thank you
That helps a lot.
I'll get on that.
 
Matthew said:
I think the breaking point is 50% above the max g-load? Someone else can ring in on this. So an airplane with a 9g max will probably fail at 13.5g?

There are videos of structural tests where wings are weighted until they snap.
Click to expand...
I knew a guy that pulled 12Gs. The airplane was structurally damaged but it didn't break apart. I don't remember if it flew again.
 
King Air?

This might be a combination of too many Gs and VNE.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20070202-0

The photos in that report don't show the wrinkled wings.

1198348-B.jpg


KA8.jpg


KingAir2.jpg


edit: and if you are going to do something like that, make sure the checklist you have is NOT the one that has the last item of the "Shutdown" section saying "Pajamas..As Req." unless you really want to read that part in the NTSB report.
 
I have no first hand knowledge, but have heard of a Grumman AA? landing with such a great vertical speed, that it killed the pilot.

The airplane was perfectly okay.
 
Matthew said:
King Air?

This might be a combination of too many Gs and VNE.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20070202-0

The photos in that report don't show the wrinkled wings.

1198348-B.jpg
Click to expand...

When I was flying a KA200 in the early 80's, another 200 came into Flightcraft at Boeing Field. Both wings were bent and the airplane was hastily locked away in a hangar...........never to be seen again.

About a month later the crew was flying a new 300.
 
Matthew said:
edit: and if you are going to do something like that, make sure the checklist you have is NOT the one that has the last item of the "Shutdown" section saying "Pajamas..As Req." unless you really want to read that part in the NTSB report.
Click to expand...

143mer9.jpg
 
kgruber said:
I have no first hand knowledge, but have heard of a Grumman AA? landing with such a great vertical speed, that it killed the pilot.

The airplane was perfectly okay.
Click to expand...

I know of an AA-1 at KPAE (way back in the '80s) that landed so hard it left skid marks from the tires on the underside of the wing...

Also there's this. - https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employme...ev_id=20001212X20121&ntsbno=LAX00LA035&akey=1

"The outboard 1/3 of the aircraft's left wing was deformed upward about 5 degrees with respect to the inboard section during an encounter with wake turbulence while on downwind leg for landing. The upper wing skins of both wings exhibited compression buckling, and the mass balance weights on both ailerons were separated and fell from the aircraft."
 
nauga said:
Was this by chance an A-7?

Nauga,
who also knows a guy...
Click to expand...

I remember in John Monroe "Hawk" Smith's book he was fighting Joe "Hoser" Satrapa and Joe overstressed his Tomcat to avoid a kill. Forget how many Gs though.
 
Velocity173 said:
I remember in John Monroe "Hawk" Smith's book he was fighting Joe "Hoser" Satrapa and Joe overstressed his Tomcat to avoid a kill. Forget how many Gs though.
Click to expand...
May very well be a Tomcat Cooter is referring to; however, the 12 g's rings a bell in my dim light attack memory.

Nauga,
and his pleasing crescent shape
 
stratobee said:
To the OP. This is a tough forum for newcomers. They **** and **** on everyone. I know your question is genuine, so because I'm the only decent human being on this board, I'll answer:

No, it's not possible to turn in 40m, not even a Cub could do that. But if you make it a VTOL fighter that can slow down, then it could be done. Another scenario is: If you have very tall buildings, it's possible theoretically to do an Immelman-turn. Say he comes in slow and low, really slow, hits afterburners/max power and pulls the stick back and rolls out of inverted at the top. If the buildings around him are high enough, it's possible that could be done. Possible.

Something to keep in mind. In tight canyon turns and mountain flying, it is possible to trade altitude to increase the turning radius by descending heavily in the steep turn. That's why experienced mountain pilots fly as high as they can and to one side of the mountain/slope, never in the center, in case they come to a dead end and need to turn back.
Click to expand...

I think you mean DEcrease the turning radius(or increase the rate of turn)
 
Matthew said:
Here's a 777 test:



and a story of an F-15 that landed with only one wing:

Click to expand...

I wanted to inform you that most of the prologue/backgrounds/characters/setting/plot/dialogue is now done. Your input was extraordinary helpful. Thank you.

I only have minor questions now. Most of which concern proper terminology. reports I read on flight protocols refer to the control tower as ether "flight command" " "control tower" or "tower". Which one would be the proper term when communicating with them?

Next-
i think this may be an interesting question. (I planned on making an entire new post dedicated to this question, but I had no idea where to put it.)

What would be your ideal dream plane?
If you could design your own tactical jet, with limitations being nonexistent.
What would it be?
model: list a similar model plane you would want it designed after.
Specs: what specifications you would desire. Weight/thrust/etc.
 
Wake Burns said:
I wanted to inform you that most of the prologue/backgrounds/characters/setting/plot/dialogue is now done. Your input was extraordinary helpful. Thank you.

I only have minor questions now. Most of which concern proper terminology. reports I read on flight protocols refer to the control tower as ether "flight command" " "control tower" or "tower". Which one would be the proper term when communicating with them?

Next-
i think this may be an interesting question. (I planned on making an entire new post dedicated to this question, but I had no idea where to put it.)

What would be your ideal dream plane?
If you could design your own tactical jet, with limitations being nonexistent.
What would it be?
model: list a similar model plane you would want it designed after.
Specs: what specifications you would desire. Weight/thrust/etc.
Click to expand...

Tower would go by the name of the field or if military, name of the base. Example, "Gillespie Tower" or "Miramar Tower."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top