Maximum permissible actually doesn´t mean maximum that the aircraft can sustain. A safety factor is used in aircraft construction and also in manuals/permissible maneuvers.

I would be pleased that they tune up what a human can stand in a fighter aircraft so that one cannot abuse the very high followed by negative Gs.

At the present time, one can handle very high Gs for some time but even a low neg G for long time results in sort of blackout.

Totally agree JF. For instance the way we survive a bad landing or even a belly landing is over-protective. Wheels up would at best give bad bruising to the pilot shoulders and would usually break his nose on the gunsight (There is footage of a PR Spitfire landing wheels up from a mission but he was fine because the PR had no guns!). When they nose over the pilot is often injured, usually trapped and doused in petrol with a grave risk of fire. Heavy landings could easily cause spinal injuries and improper bailout often led to the pilot hitting the airframe - Hans Joachim Marseille was killed this way, the P51 Big Beautiful Doll which crashed at Duxford in 2011 injured the pilots legs on the tail as he bailed out - it would make people try to get out properly, canopy, half roll, forward stick and out. (can't really do harneess, oxygen and RT connection)

If you died on bad landings that would improve landing quality I am sure!

Agree 100% with both comments - for interest the Pilot's Notes General, which were always issued and used in conjunction with the Pilot's Notes, say this about g forces and blackout thresholds:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...arpe/PNG3a.jpg

I remember reading somewhere that 109 pilots had slightly higher blackout thresholds because their seats had a greater backward angle than the British - RAF fighters later adopted two-step rudder pedals for similar reasons.

Happened to me first time ever chasing a spit from 5km. He went all the way strait down and pulled up with mts to spear. I pulled out at about 500mts after loosing my rudder and ailerons. I bailed out soon after the discovery of missing control surfaces. The spit landed.

Is this an observation or are you saying this is incorrect? :confused:

S!

Observation IMHO how the FM/DM really needs some work on ALL..and I repeat ALL..planes regardless side they represent.

Big +1

JD
AKA_MattE

If you make an assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. It's called the burden of proof, and that's how science works. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect similar standards when we're talking about flight physics.

The 109 was quicker into a dive than the Spit, but the Spit wasn't known for breaking up at high speed.