Proving Negative G-Forces with an Example

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlueBiro
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    G-forces Negative
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating negative G-forces experienced by a stunt pilot during a maneuver. The user presents a scenario with a pilot's mass of 70 kg and a velocity of 60 m/s, seeking to understand the implications of these figures on G-force calculations. They express confusion over achieving a negative G-force result, noting that the formulas used yield only positive values. The user concludes that with a radius of 150 m, the acceleration calculated is 24 m/s², which translates to approximately 2.4 Gs, questioning if this indicates 2.4 negative Gs when the pilot is traveling vertically downwards. The thread highlights the complexities of interpreting G-forces in aerial maneuvers.
BlueBiro
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi, nice forum. I was thinking how I would go about proving with an example, that negative Gs are occurring?

Homework Statement



Say a stunt pilot is doing a maneuver that will expose him to negative Gs. It could look like this:
[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Aeros_fig_englishbunt.svg[/URL]
Let his mass = 70kg and v = 60 m/s
These can be modified if you like

Homework Equations



Fc = (mv²)/r & F = ma

or ac = v²/r ?

The Attempt at a Solution



I was hoping to be able to finish with something like: if r > 1024m then he experiences -Gs but the answer is always positive. The only thing that could be -ive is velocity but it's squared. Am I attacking this wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not clear from your diagram what the direction of travel is.
 
He would be traveling from the point (the top).
Using the above velocity, with a radius of 150m, his accel would = 24 ms² ≈ 2.4 g's.
Would I be correct in saying that when he is travveling vertically downwards that would be 2.4 negative g's?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top