3 ms·

Higher G needs a fully powered flight envelope. You can not stick a vane out and get a ~~30G turn. You might need vectorable thrust at many places on the aircra

Higher G needs a fully powered flight envelope. You can not stick a vane out and get a ~~30G turn. You might need vectorable thrust at many places on the aircraft. If this comes from discrete thrust engines, or diverted from the main engines, these will need to be powerful to effect the changes needed.This much like the path above mach 1, where methods and procedures need to be determined by testin in tunnels and then in air. Some rececnt Russian missiles have one time attitude thusters. Of course for an aeroplane, it would need recurring and controllable thrust - small spot engine or ducted??

nradov 6y ago
Silly and totally impractical. What works in a relatively small missile will not scale up to a larger drone. Powerful attitude thrusters are too heavy and take up a lot of space. Aircraft don't have weight and volume to spare. They would be left with insufficient capacity for fuel and weapons.
- aurizon 6y ago
  Remember, the entire life support environment and space for the pilot and cockpit are gone. Lots more room for a higher power to weight ratio.
  - nradov 6y ago
    I don't need to remember anything. You simply don't understand the engineering reality here.
    - aurizon 6y ago
      You have no idea of the engineered redundancy for piloted flight. Dual and treble hydraulics/electrics. space for pilot, ejection seat, seat and cockpit, and on and on. Strip this out and you get a massive increase in the power to weight ratio. Air breathing, modern high efficiency jet engines - even turbo-prop with point jets. It will take 10 years or more for this to reach optimization. 30G is well within reach, ~~50?? A lot depends of flight endurance needed. They now make mach 15 air to air rockets that no human piloted plane can evade. Jamming helps many of these, but times are getting so short that at mach 15 few loops can close in time to avoid the focussed blast radius of the latest missiles. This means a steered shrapnel pattern, versus an omni directional banger.
      - nradov 6y ago
        I obviously have a better idea than you do. Stripping out redundant equipment only saves a marginal amount of weight. Large drones aren't disposable; they still need a certain level of redundancy to return to base after a mechanical failure. 30G is not within reach. Calculate how much the airframe would have to weigh to handle that strain, and explain how to avoid stalling the wing or compressor. Scaling up a small missile design won't work at all. This is just basic physics. Range and radar signature are higher priorities than maneuverability.

nradov 6y ago

Silly and totally impractical. What works in a relatively small missile will not scale up to a larger drone. Powerful attitude thrusters are too heavy and take up a lot of space. Aircraft don't have weight and volume to spare. They would be left with insufficient capacity for fuel and weapons.

aurizon 6y ago
Remember, the entire life support environment and space for the pilot and cockpit are gone. Lots more room for a higher power to weight ratio.
- nradov 6y ago
  I don't need to remember anything. You simply don't understand the engineering reality here.
  - aurizon 6y ago
    You have no idea of the engineered redundancy for piloted flight. Dual and treble hydraulics/electrics. space for pilot, ejection seat, seat and cockpit, and on and on. Strip this out and you get a massive increase in the power to weight ratio. Air breathing, modern high efficiency jet engines - even turbo-prop with point jets. It will take 10 years or more for this to reach optimization. 30G is well within reach, ~~50?? A lot depends of flight endurance needed. They now make mach 15 air to air rockets that no human piloted plane can evade. Jamming helps many of these, but times are getting so short that at mach 15 few loops can close in time to avoid the focussed blast radius of the latest missiles. This means a steered shrapnel pattern, versus an omni directional banger.
    - nradov 6y ago
      I obviously have a better idea than you do. Stripping out redundant equipment only saves a marginal amount of weight. Large drones aren't disposable; they still need a certain level of redundancy to return to base after a mechanical failure. 30G is not within reach. Calculate how much the airframe would have to weigh to handle that strain, and explain how to avoid stalling the wing or compressor. Scaling up a small missile design won't work at all. This is just basic physics. Range and radar signature are higher priorities than maneuverability.