Negative to a Positive Gravitational Force

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of gravitational forces experienced by an aircraft transitioning from negative to positive G-forces during flight. Participants explore the implications of these forces on aircraft structure and performance, focusing on the mathematical and physical reasoning behind the calculations of total G-forces experienced.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario where an aircraft transitions from -2 G's to +3 G's and asks how many G's are experienced, suggesting a disagreement on whether to consider this as 5 G's or 3 G's.
  • Another participant argues that the change in force corresponds to a total change of ~5 G's, but emphasizes the significance of the direction of force and discusses the implications for structural stresses in a beam under varying loads.
  • A participant clarifies that the discussion is about an aircraft in motion, simplifying the scenario to vertical movements and reiterating that G-forces are directional.
  • Further, a participant questions whether transitioning from no G's to +3 G's after experiencing -2 G's still results in only 3 G's of force on the aircraft.
  • Another participant explains that G is a measure of acceleration and argues that the maximum acceleration experienced by the aircraft would be +3 G's, cautioning against simply adding the accelerations to arrive at 5 G's.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to calculate the total G-forces experienced during the transition from negative to positive G's. There is no consensus on whether the total should be considered as 5 G's or 3 G's, indicating an unresolved debate.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the nature of G-forces and their effects on aircraft structure, as well as the mathematical treatment of acceleration. The implications of directionality in force and the context of motion are also significant but not fully resolved.

EA6BMech
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I am with an aircraft squadron and we have a conditional inspection for aircraft that pull an excessive amount of "G's". The inspection is to check significant parts of the aircraft that might crack or buckle under certain amounts of stress. There is an arguemt in the shop about going from a negative "G" (Forces pulling in one direction) to a positive "G" (Forces pulling in another direction). If the aircraft is flying and is pulling -2 G's then changes direction and pulls +3 G's... How many "G's" were pulled. Some say 5 G's and others say 3 G's. Can someone help us out and maybe provide a reference for this issue? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The change in force would correspond to a change of ~5G, but when going from -2g to +3g, the significance of the sign is the direction of force.

Take a beam fixed at two ends. Pushing up with 2g (-2g) would cause if to bow up. The top would be in tension and the bottom in compression at the point of loading. Then press down with 3g (+3g) and the beam bows downward, and the top is in compression and the bottom in tension under the point of load.

So with the reversal in acceleration, some parts will experience a change from compression to tension, or change in amount of tension, and a reversal of the direction of shear.

Is one referring to stationary parts or moving/rotatig parts?
 
We would be moving because we are flying in an aircraft. And just for simplicity we would just be going up and down. The debate is if you were flying in a negative G but then you change direction to put positive G on the aircraft. I do understand that a "G" force (- or +) is just directional (ie up or down such as on the "suspension beam" you used for a visual). Does this help?
 
Here is something else I would like to add just to get the point across. If you start at no G's and go to 3 G's then go from -2 G's to +3 G's... Are you still only putting 3G's of force on the aircraft?
 
The "G" is a measure of acceleration. If the plane was accelerating at -2Gs and then goes to +3Gs...then the maximum acceleration was +3G. If you plot a graph of velocity vs. time, and you derive the acceleration, the maximum acceleration will be +3G. If you look at the forces experienced by the airplane, the maximum will be 3x the force of gravity.

I can see how somebody might be tempted to add the accelerations and come up with 5Gs, but it doesn't work that way. You might as well accelerate at 3Gs for ten seconds, and then claim that you actually accelerated at 30Gs because 3x10 is 30...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
11K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K