4 ms·

Are you sure the integrity of the airframe isn't build to a particular strength due to the limitations of humans? Why carry extra weight for structure if the pi

Are you sure the integrity of the airframe isn't build to a particular strength due to the limitations of humans? Why carry extra weight for structure if the pilot can't handle those turns? I doubt it's a fundamental limitation of materials or physics, just of the constraints given to the designers of the aircraft.

tadfisher 11y ago
The airframe is built to meet the intersection of hundreds of variables. Speed, stability, weight, repairability, and cost are a few. Needing to support a human is just one of those factors. You can over-G an F-16 at 4G depending on airspeed and loadout. That's well below (trained) human tolerances. Sure, you can build a drone that can handle 1000 cycles of 16G turns, but it's likely not going to be cheap, repairable, fast, capable of carrying weaponry, etc.
jacquesm 11y ago
Safety margins dictate that the airframe should be substantially stronger than the occupants maximum tolerance.
- tadfisher 11y ago
  No, safety margins are implemented by a computer limiter and are often set far below the occupants' maximum tolerance.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Engineering safety margins, not occupants safety margins.
    - tadfisher 11y ago
      Yes. For example, the F-16 was fitted with a 9G limiter for symmetric maneuvers (zero roll and sideslip). A structural check was mandated if the HUD indicated 9.8G was hit during flight.