Flanker vs F-15

Tarver Engineering wrote:



Sounds like a simulator to me.

How are you, Mike?



Moved into a new house the beginning of this month- still trying to
get everything working and all the stuff unpacked. So I'm busy,
with a possible trip to Little Rock in May for instructor school.

The PTTs, IIRC, are just wooden mockups without any moving parts, btw.
They use them to teach switch positions and let the students get
familiar with the checklists, but they don't actually do anything. I
don't believe that they've got anything more sophisticated in the
way of actual (movement, vis, guages that do anything) simulators
there. That makes Sheppard's training syllabus very different from
that at the other bases- not to mention the multinational staff and
student population.

Mike

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.

Why is that?

Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the 20#
stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the airplane
would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.

snip of monkey offering additional proof that he is no pilot
if you are talking about pulling harder to override aoa/g limits, the
canadian cf-18 does not have that feature.

"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:



Sounds like a simulator to me.

How are you, Mike?



Moved into a new house the beginning of this month- still trying to
get everything working and all the stuff unpacked. So I'm busy,
with a possible trip to Little Rock in May for instructor school.

I have the best blloms on my apple tree this year that I have ever had. The
Granny smith is almost solid white with flowers. I am going to try and grow
Indian tobacco this year, the yellow rose of Alabama.

The PTTs, IIRC, are just wooden mockups without any moving parts, btw.
They use them to teach switch positions and let the students get
familiar with the checklists, but they don't actually do anything. I
don't believe that they've got anything more sophisticated in the
way of actual (movement, vis, guages that do anything) simulators
there. That makes Sheppard's training syllabus very different from
that at the other bases- not to mention the multinational staff and
student population.

That is different from what I am used to.

The PTTs, IIRC, are just wooden mockups without any moving parts, btw.
They use them to teach switch positions and let the students get
familiar with the checklists, but they don't actually do anything. I
don't believe that they've got anything more sophisticated in the
way of actual (movement, vis, guages that do anything) simulators
there. That makes Sheppard's training syllabus very different from
that at the other bases- not to mention the multinational staff and
student population.

Mike


Did they get rid of their IFR link trainers? They had those last I saw for IFR
practice, and was a fully functional cockpit, just no kind of visual display.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Ron wrote:


Did they get rid of their IFR link trainers? They had those last I saw for IFR
practice, and was a fully functional cockpit, just no kind of visual display.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)


Hadn't heard of any functional simulators there- guess I'll have
to check into it- I may be able to find a ENJJPT grad somewhere and
get a more definitive answer.

Mike

"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
...
Ron wrote:


Did they get rid of their IFR link trainers? They had those last I saw
for IFR
practice, and was a fully functional cockpit, just no kind of visual
display.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)


Hadn't heard of any functional simulators there- guess I'll have
to check into it- I may be able to find a ENJJPT grad somewhere and
get a more definitive answer.

Then you may have been posting out of turn, Mike.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 05:24:55 GMT, Michael Kelly
wrote:

R Haskin wrote:
Actually fly-by-wire aircraft can be over-Gd -- it happens to F-16s all the
time.

Agreed. The Bone is a 2 channel FBW on one side with a hydromechanical
stability augmented system on the other side. There are no limiters on
the FBW or stability aug so over G's happen all the time. Limiters on
the 16 make it harder to over G but not impossible.

The F-15, while not "fully" fly-by-wire, has a primary flight control system
that is FBW (called the CAS, or Control Augmentation System) and a
hydromechanical backup system.

IIRC my F-15 test pilot former colleague described the F-15C as fully
hydromechanical and the Echo's as you did. BTW saw you the other day on
the history channel. Good interview.

Cheers,
Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer



WTF????? I have no idea why this is showing up as me typing it.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

WTF????? I have no idea why this is showing up as me typing it.

Perhaps when your tinfoil hat falls off you become a different person.