More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with added nationalistic abuse (was: #1 Jet of World War II)

Mike Marron wrote:

Al Minyard:
Of course, with the fuselage horizontal pitch at 0, AoI equals
AoA :-)

Exactly right.

-Mike Marron



Ok, I see now why you said "see the F-8 Crusader".
John emailed me this URL which partially explains it's wing
shenanigans.
http://pacificcoastairmuseum.org/200...Crusader/j.asp

Quote from URL:
"No, the wing isn't about to fall off. It was designed to do
this so that the fast moving Crusader could slow down enough to
land on the carriers. This also kept the nose of the airplane
down during landing so the pilot could see."
Unquote

I still don't see the purpose here unless it's _only_ advantage
is the second sentence in the quote there. Why would an increase
in AOA 'help the a/c slow down for a carrier landing'?...of
course it would 'slow down' BUT it'd now be way high on the
glidepath TOO. Just as it would be if you hauled back on the
stick...the _only_ advantage that I can see for this capability
of the F-8 is to lower the nose for better visibility from the
cockpit. Mind you, that must have been a large advantage imo.
'cause it seems to me that that'd be a big engineering project.

Please guys, tell me where I'm wrong here...

A/c is flying smoothly down a three degree glide-path,
the wing's AoA is 5 degrees. AoI is zero. (guesses of course)

Pilot pops the 'AoI switch', AoI becomes 5 degrees, AoA becomes
10 degrees, a/c tries to climb, pilot prevents that by pushing
stick forward, AoA now returns to 5 degrees and a/c ~returns to
glidepath. (Fuselage is now at a steeper angle than it was).

I'll tell you what will help, explain where I'm wrong in calm
terms or ignore this post. Insults about my lineage, my skin
colour, my mental capacity etc will only make you look bad to the
lurkers and won't affect me one whit. (I'm old and tough
skinned).



--

-Gord.

" wrote:

Mike Marron wrote:

Al Minyard:
Of course, with the fuselage horizontal pitch at 0, AoI equals
AoA :-)

Exactly right.

-Mike Marron



Ok, I see now why you said "see the F-8 Crusader".
John emailed me this URL which partially explains it's wing
shenanigans.
http://pacificcoastairmuseum.org/200...Crusader/j.asp

Quote from URL:
"No, the wing isn't about to fall off. It was designed to do
this so that the fast moving Crusader could slow down enough to
land on the carriers. This also kept the nose of the airplane
down during landing so the pilot could see."
Unquote

I still don't see the purpose here unless it's _only_ advantage
is the second sentence in the quote there. Why would an increase
in AOA 'help the a/c slow down for a carrier landing'?...of
course it would 'slow down' BUT it'd now be way high on the
glidepath TOO. Just as it would be if you hauled back on the
stick...the _only_ advantage that I can see for this capability
of the F-8 is to lower the nose for better visibility from the
cockpit. Mind you, that must have been a large advantage imo.
'cause it seems to me that that'd be a big engineering project.

Please guys, tell me where I'm wrong here...

The other advantage of keeping the fuselage more level is that it provides
more ground clearance at the tail, so you can increase the AoA (and fly
slower) while still maintaining pilot view and sufficient tail clearance.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:


The other advantage of keeping the fuselage more level is that it provides
more ground clearance at the tail, so you can increase the AoA (and fly
slower) while still maintaining pilot view and sufficient tail clearance.

Guy

Yes...that makes sense, perhaps they designed the a/c for very
high speed flight by having the AoI very low to reduce drag but
needed to increase the Aoi for landing to, as you say, allow
'eventless' landings...
--

-Gord.

In article , Gord Beaman
?@?.? writes
I still don't see the purpose here unless it's _only_ advantage
is the second sentence in the quote there. Why would an increase
in AOA 'help the a/c slow down for a carrier landing'?...of
course it would 'slow down' BUT it'd now be way high on the
glidepath TOO. Just as it would be if you hauled back on the
stick...the _only_ advantage that I can see for this capability
of the F-8 is to lower the nose for better visibility from the
cockpit. Mind you, that must have been a large advantage imo.
'cause it seems to me that that'd be a big engineering project.

Concorde went with physically lowering the nose (out of the pilot's
view) and cranking the AoA right up.

--
John

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Ok, I see now why you said "see the F-8 Crusader".
John emailed me this URL which partially explains it's wing
shenanigans.
http://pacificcoastairmuseum.org/200...Crusader/j.asp

Quote from URL:
"No, the wing isn't about to fall off. It was designed to do
this so that the fast moving Crusader could slow down enough to
land on the carriers. This also kept the nose of the airplane
down during landing so the pilot could see."
Unquote

I still don't see the purpose here unless it's _only_ advantage
is the second sentence in the quote there. Why would an increase
in AOA 'help the a/c slow down for a carrier landing'?...of
course it would 'slow down' BUT it'd now be way high on the
glidepath TOO. Just as it would be if you hauled back on the
stick...

Haven't you heard the old axiom, "pitch for airspeed, power
for altitude?" (See below).

the _only_ advantage that I can see for this capability
of the F-8 is to lower the nose for better visibility from the
cockpit. Mind you, that must have been a large advantage imo.
'cause it seems to me that that'd be a big engineering project.

The F-8 won the Collier Trophy for the year's (mid 1950's) greatest
achievement in aviation. Besides just increasing the visibility, the
variable incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast
fighter to maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

Please guys, tell me where I'm wrong here...

A/c is flying smoothly down a three degree glide-path,
the wing's AoA is 5 degrees. AoI is zero. (guesses of course)

Pilot pops the 'AoI switch', AoI becomes 5 degrees, AoA becomes
10 degrees, a/c tries to climb, pilot prevents that by pushing
stick forward, AoA now returns to 5 degrees and a/c ~returns to
glidepath. (Fuselage is now at a steeper angle than it was).

You're not just along for the ride so before you start flipping
switches and reconfiguring the A/C for the approach and
landing you anticipate changes in airspeed, drag, power and
stick pressure etc. so as to stay on the glideslope w/o exceeding
your critical angle of attack.

In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).

Maybe an F-8 driver can jump in here and explain better than I can.
I can only tell you that when landing my variable incidence A/C,
I can adjust the wing's angle of incidence (instantly if I wish)
simply by pushing the control bar full forward (unlike a conventional
airplane, the stick is situated horizontally so it's called a "bar"),
or pulling the bar full aft into my gut. And I can coordinate the wing
angle of incidence/attack and throttle depending on the type
of landing (e.g: short field, soft-field, crosswind, solo or 2-up, wet
or dry wing, etc.) fully stabilized on the glideslope w/o porpoising
up and down and/or making any radical changes in airspeed...


-Mike ( could land 3 times [crowhop] on an aircraft carrier Marron

Mike Marron wrote:


In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).


Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
that it's easier for me to describe.

I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

It doesn't help to compare conventional a/c with ultra-lights
because I don't understand them very well.


--

-Gord.

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
Mike Marron wrote:


In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).


Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
that it's easier for me to describe.

I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

No, that's pretty much it, really. The wing, for purposes of lift,
doesn't care particularly much what the attitude of teh fuselage is.
The variable incidence wing on the F-8 allowed better visibility, and,
as Guy said, better deck clearance, but it also allowed a shorter and
stronger main landing gear. This was pretty important in the
Crusader, as the loads on the gear as it trapped on the carriers of
the day were pretty much pushing the limit of what would work.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
Mike Marron wrote:


In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).


Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
that it's easier for me to describe.

I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

a) Improved visibility over the nose, that's good.
b) Greater clearance for the tail, that's good.
c) Thrust line stays closer to horizontal. Good? Not sure...
Any thing else?

A & b would seem significant when making carrier landings.

"John Keeney" wrote:
"Gord Beaman" wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).

Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
that it's easier for me to describe.

I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation," it was designed to give
the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
operation in order to land aboard carriers.

Also, if you peddle back to that website that you posted depicting
a close-up of the Crusader's wing in the raised position, you will
clearly see how the raised portion of the wing assembly directly
above the fuselage is flat as a sheet of plywood and protrudes
right into the relative wind -- effectively functioning as a speed
brake.

a) Improved visibility over the nose, that's good.
b) Greater clearance for the tail, that's good.
c) Thrust line stays closer to horizontal. Good? Not sure...
Any thing else?

I could be wrong, but I don't see any reason why the thrust line
staying closer to horizontal would be a "bad" thing. In the event
of a waveoff the pilot simply has to light the burner and go around
w/o making any drastic adjustments in angle of attack because
the raised wing is already configured for takeoff.

A & b would seem significant when making carrier landings.

Agreed. Although the 20-30 kt. wind over the deck is laminar
and smooth, the part curling down over the fantail is not which
can cause a sudden increase in rate of sink at precisely the
most inopportune time (e.g: ramp strike!)

-Mike Marron

Mike Marron wrote:


As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.


That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
undercarriage...

In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation,"

I think it was, it gets the fuselage 'more in line with the wing
chord' which 'has' to reduce drag.

Why do all the engineering to design this complication if it
isn't a very important aspect?. I think that the 'only' reason
for the 'variable AoI' was to allow for low drag (and high speed)
flight yet ~normal fuselage attitude for landing (for pilot vis
plus normal u/c config)...

I think that it's possible that on an a/c with a very low AoI
like this the extreme nose up attitude of the fuselage (to get
enough AoA on short final) may not be 'liveable' because of what
John mentions (tail strikes) plus very poor pilot visibility plus
the requirement for very longlegged u/c as Peter mentioned.

it was designed to give
the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
operation in order to land aboard carriers.


Why?...you won't get any more 'lift and drag'
(you can get all you want with the elevators) BUT you WILL have a
much more fuselage 'nose up' attitude if you cannot increase your
AoI for landing.


--

-Gord.