SOC, at supersonic every plane have an very stabilisied condition, thats because the shock-waves walls, moving at 5g in a free run is one thing, moving 5g against an “concrete wall” is another veriy diferent, is like putting an plane in a trash compactor

SOC

The limit, at supersonic speeds or not, is advertised as 4.5G. This is also the total G limit. Why? Physics. 4.5 G means the aircraft’s structure is stressed to withstand forces equal to 4.5 times normal gravity. Period. End of story. Now, as for being able to withstand 4.5Gs at supersonic speeds, all that means is that the aircraft has enough power and strong enough controls and actuators to perform such maneuvers.

Man, your wrong with that, the stress that an structure resist at supersonic is much higher than at subsonic, also to move at supersonic 5gs you need a loooot of energy,for an example conventional flats structure design could brake very easely, you need power and an good structure design…..but again the foxbat have limitations at low level, the reason is the design….

Nuke

Youre an good poster, welcom, but i think that youre exagerating a little bit comparing an foxbat with an f22, maybe we could analyse the raptor supercruiser design (an very good design) in another thread….

Seans you must consider engine efficiency at medium-high levels, sustained engine pull, and aerodynamics and another factors, the mig25 fuselage lift is much better than the f15, the curved eagle wing edge works only at low level-high speed (subsonic) turn, again…using the foxbat is bad idea against f15c (at low level), but at medium-high alltitude is equal or better….

Wellll the design is all (even at the details), the supersonical g limit, the welded unions, etc….. the foxbat have problems at low level because that sharped wing edges, i accepted (since this thread start) that using the foxbat is bad idea against f15c (at low level), but at medium-high alltitude is equal or better….

“All AIM-7s expended…problems with the missiles on the rail…more confidence in the AIM-9…they were guided in by AWACS behind the MiG so as not to give themselves away with radar emissions and the MiG is a nice fat IR target…they weren’t carrying AIM-7s…this was one of the captive carry AIM-120 sorties and they had no AIM-7s onboard…
Want more analysis? I do get paid for this, BTW.”

2 eagles!!!!!!! with that “problems with the missiles on the rail” its sooooo high improbable!!!!,and all the huge excuse there not analysis there inventions!!!!
anyway the migs outurned the eagles, look, i see the design, the welded unions, the g limit ,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc, you have your inventions this disscusion will never end, its seen that you are an usaf fanatic, but wellll…..

“The next question is obvious: where are you getting a “supersonic G limit of 5 gs” from.”
puffffff……look im not a guy that like say “ahhhhh i saw in this book or another”, investigate by yourself…………..

And the FOXBAT accident I mentioned, it was an instantaneous load of 11 or 12gs during the pushover, which was not sustained throughout the incident. Obviously the use of the word “sustained” was confusing

bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla