Sorry you’re correct. I drove down to Chicago to test drive one a few weeks ago, and it was ME who was the lunatic.
For some reason there seems to be this belief that the coefficient of friction must be less than 1, but there’s nothing in the laws of physics that makes this a limit, nor any reason at all to think that the number is somehow “special”. Dragster tires can have a CoF of 5 or more. Street tires on dry asphalt are generally in the 0.9 range but performance tires can obviously go higher.
Put a sheet of rubber on a glass plate. Can you tilt the glass past 45 degrees? Then you have a CoF of >1.
I said I was surprised, not that I doubted it. There is, as you say, nothing magical about a mu of one or higher… but the fact remains that it’s fairy uncommon. It would certainly have to use nonstandard tires. But then, I suppose that there’s rather a lot about a Tesla that’s nonstandard.
Even as a humble sailplane student pilot, much was made of this “visual hygiene” of which you speak. When practicing spins (and recovery therefrom), which we did over the San Francisco Bay, the instructor made it a point to have us go several full turns while I was supposed to watch and identify the various Bay Area cities around the bay as they wheeled past.
This visual hygiene: I was about to ask: I just made that expression up–I think, unless I read it in an LSL post and don’t remember that.
Is it for real?
LSL answered back here without quotes, and you do, each of which have implications to usage.
There are other words used also. But the point remains that where you look and how you look and what you pay attention to matters. You learn to do that deliberately, not haphazardly.
Just as you learn to look both ways before crossing the street. The kids who get flattened are the ones who aren’t practicing deliberate looking. When driving we’ve all been surprised after pulling out in front of somebody who was closer or faster than we thought. That’s an example of looking without seeing.
We all might be using the term a bit loosely. Your example was a seasick person doing better on deck by watching the horizon than in an enclosed cabin with no visual motion cues to match what their ears & butt are saying.
LSLGuy, I have to ask, how does the body feel after flight having done high g maneouvers? Is it particularly hard on the pilot, in that s/he is spent for the day?
A lot like having just fought a wrestling match.
You’re actually doing two things at once. One is stabilizing your body, moving arms & legs & head as necessary against the G-forces. The other is performing the “anti-G straining maneuver” to force blood out of the legs & belly & pump it up to the heart & brain. The G-suit (not so great wiki) is an essential helper, but you’re doing most of the work yourself. The move is not too different from performing an Olympic squat weightlifting move. But isometrically at about a 4 second rep interval. Squeeze. Gasp. Squeeze. Gasp. Squeeze. Gasp. For a couple minutes at a crack.
It’s hard aerobic work. Like repeatedly lifting moderate weights over & over. Your legs & torso muscles get a lot more workout than your arms do. Though they’re not idle either, especially when you’re on the defensive.
By the time you’re back at base you’ve recovered from the immediate out of breath & sweaty effects, but you still feel & smell like you’ve had a workout earlier today.
IIRC our peacetime standard was not to fly two air-to-air training sorties in one day. You’d be too whipped to safely max-perform the second one. A second sortie of milder stuff like non-tactical ground attack (i.e. bombing target practice) or instrument refresher was fine.
A sore neck until bedtime is also standard. Like most of my peers, my head/neck x-ray shows small long-healed stress fractures in the cervical vertebrae. I’ve got no ongoing symptoms from these. Then again I didn’t do the job for 20+ years in both the active duty and reserve force as so many guys have.
Using the workout analogy, when you start an exercise routine initially, you are usually wasted at the end of it. After a few days it becomes easier and the overtime routine. Is it the case here or is it so violent that you are always tired at the end of it like a marathon?
Buzz Aldrin mentioned that even people on a non-flying assignment or seconded (like him) had to fly for a certain amount of hours a year to maintain proficiency in the 1960’s USAF; both he and Collins had to go to complete the hours shortly after Apollo 11. Was that done in your day and if so, would say an F16 pilot currently posted at the Pentagon be expected to undertake these maneovers when he comes in for his annual flight time
Bearing in mind that when I was riding in the back seat of fighters, I was in my 20s, and in the best shape of my life. I’d be tired immediately after a high G mission, but it was nothing that a shower, lunch, and a coke couldn’t fix. I never had any problems flying twice a day.
Not a marathon. It’s a pretty specific exercise regimen and as such you train into it pretty quickly.
USAF also tried to get pilots to do specialized weight training, aerobics, etc., above and beyond the basic PT expected of most DoD personnel. That effort was generally embraced by the jocks and disdained by the enginerds. I wouldn’t be surprised to find the culture & the formal requirements include a lot more exercise nowadays.
The key thing, especially in the serious high performance jets like F-15 and subsequent, is that your personal physical stamina becomes one of the performance limitations of the man/machine system. The airplane can fight longer & harder than you can.
Said another way, if today’s your day to die, it might well be due to you being too physically wimpy to defeat the other guy. That’s a powerful motivation to get better & work harder.
So over time as your task-specific physical conditioning gets better, the work doesn’t get easier; instead you just turn harder, see better, fight longer. And still come out feeling utterly spent.
Some of the real natural jocks, the pugnacious 5’5" fireplugs with thick legs & short necks (i.e. not me) didn’t have nearly as much trouble as the tall narrow calm guys with big slow-pumping competitive swimmer’s hearts (i.e. me).
As Oakminster says, a couple hours and a good meal later and you’re feeling a lot better. Oh to be 25 again!
There’s also a big difference between the Gs encountered doing air-to-air vs. air-to-ground. AA is much more sustained and higher G forces; AG is short bursts of lower G forces with long rests in between.
AA also includes a lot more Gs while what you’re looking at, and therefore aiming your face at, isn’t generally within 45 degrees up/down or left/right of dead ahead. So there’s more gymnastics, pulling G’s while looking over your shoulder, past your backbone, or out the top of the canopy. All of which is extra tiring.
I have heard that long term ‘high G’ work from/for any reason has bad effects on your internal organ attachments that can be a real problem in later life. ?? (things get pulled loose?)
Bunk?
Sorta?
Rare?
Very individual type specif?
Roller coasters are AWESOME.
It thus follows that EVERYTHING feels worse than a roller coaster. Except if the roller coaster is rolling over you. That would feel pretty bad.
I’ve also heard old wive’s tales like that.
But I’ve never seen or been told of any real confirmation.
I don’t have contact with any military flight surgeons that might have a good handle on searching something up. Googling was uninformative.
There used to be a fabulous loop at Knotts Berry Farm (40 years ago, no idea now). The kids were running around from the exit back to the entrance to line up again.
Unlike a common inverted roller-coaster, it didn’t turn you upside down. It turned the world upside down while you stayed firmly (and fairly comfortably) pressed into your seat.
All inverted roller coasters do that.
Montezooma’s Revenge is still there, and still turning the world upside down 336 times daily, to the delight of the people strapped into the seats. Those of us in the immediate neighborhood of the park are getting kinda tired of it, to tell you the truth.
Hmmm… curious. When NASA took on the first class of astronauts (AKA the Mercury 7) there was NO planning for them to fly as any part of their training. There was a lot of grumbling among the pilots about this. Partly because of wanting to “maintain their flight proficiency” but a lot of it was because before the Life magazine deal went through, they were still just Captains/Lieutenants and Majors/Lieutenant Commanders and that’s the salary they got and if they didn’t get their 4 hours flight time every month, they did NOT get any Flight Pay. Cooper mentioned to a couple reporter buddies that “they’re saying we’re the best pilots the USA has to offer but they won’t let us fly” and eventually NASA broke down and got an old F-102 from the Air Force for the boys to fly.
So, pilots and aviators assigned to desk duty at the Pentagon take the time to schedule 4 hours a month to “maintain their flight proficiency”, remain current in flight status, and get that flight pay. There’s enough military airfields in the DC area for this. Or they’ll do it during a weekend when they’re “off-duty”.
If I remember correctly it was maintaining for proficiency in type. Aldrin actually went back to active service after Apollo 11 and served as commander of the USAF Test pilot school, until he left when he was told that he had no realistic chance of making General.
I do know that PLAAF requires a minimum amount in the air even if currently posted at a non flying position, this came out when Western media outlets questioned the ability of the Chinese pilots by saying they had to fly IIRC 30 hours a year only, as opposed to the 200+ for NATO ones and it was then clarified that that was for Pilots who were assigned to non flying roles.
The USAF used to require pilots in desk assignments to fly a bit every month for “proficiency” & to retain the extra flight pay. That was certainly true in the Mercury & IIRC Gemini days.
By the time I started in the early 80s that had been stopped; it was widely recognized as the unaffordable boondoggle it was. I don’t know exactly when it ended, but I bet it was during the post-Viet Nam contraction & budget squeeze in the late 1970s.
In my era there were flying billets where flying was your primary job, and non-flying billets where you absolutely positively did zero flying. Typically a pilot career would be two “tours” flying, then alternate one non-flying, one flying, etc., until you retired or separated. Each tour was 2-3 years long, with a (re-)training program sandwiched on the front of each tour to prepare you for whatever the duties were.
Substantially anyone making even 1-star General (<1% of new Lieutenants ever get that far) would expect to be almost purely non-flying after that.
Regardless of flying or non-flying billet if you had wings on your chest you got what was called Aviation Career Incentive Pay (“ACIP”). ACIP was on a sliding scale from about 5 to 15% of your base pay. The scale went upwards from the start of your flying career, peaked at the point where you were on the horns of leaving for the airlines or staying to make a full USAF career (e.g. about the 8-12 year point and approaching or just having made Major), then tapered back down as you got more senior / higher ranking.
In other words, it was fairy intelligently designed to achieve its purpose: get good ROI from initial training, but also to spend mostly where spending did some good. And to facilitate the desired winnowing as you get more senior & there are fewer slots for each higher rank.
ACIP was standardized across the DoD and applied equally to USAF, USN, & US Army officers. IIRC it was different for the vast majority of US Army pilots who are Warrant Officers not Officers. There is a similar program (with a different acronym of course) for enlisted aircrew positions: loadmaster, boom operator, flight engineer, flight mechanic, gunner, etc.
I just checked DoD’s website and ACIP still has the same structure today although they certainly have fiddled with the percentages & amounts a bit.