![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...
I say the simulator is where handflying should occur. Typical baseless drabble from someone who can't fly an airplane, much less teach flying! |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
![]() B2431 wrote in message ... What disturbs me most is I actually miss those pigs. Don't let it disturb you - the Phantom was (and still is) an incredible machine and I'd have given my right arm to fly one (well, flying it would be difficult with one arm, right enough, but you know what I mean). Closest I ever got was sitting in an RAF Phantom FG.1 at an airshow at RAF Chivenor (in Devon, England) when I was 10. The jet was from 111 Squadron, and was painted jet black (nicknamed "Black Mike"; it was the only RAF Phantom to be painted that way). Beautiful birds. Cheers Graeme |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 29 Sep 2003 02:54:37 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
No, YOU go look it up. Use F-4 as you suggested. You will find that fugoid refers to a pilot's unintenional over control in pitch. You will also find that this can lead to PIO. The phugoid is pilot out of the loop only. PIO is pilot in the loop only. It's absolutely certain that the phugoid and PIO are totally unrelated. Back to the subject at hand the yaw damper is used on big airplanes like the KC-135 to reduce dutch rolls. It has nothing to do with coordinated turns. Those har handled either manually or with AFCS. Dutch roll is a mode, not a maneuver. There's only one per airplane. And the yaw damper is involved with adverse/proverse yaw and the spiral mode, too. Mary -- Mary Shafer "There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets" Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:25:07 -0700, "Darrell" wrote:
Beside being a Boeing instructor I was also an AA airline captain and as for military, I spent 20 years in the Air Force and flew the B-52H you refer to at Minot for 5 years. I was an instructor and in Stan Eval in B-52Hs. (we didn't call them "splaps" or "Splats") Did you know a BUF pilot named "Tom" Turley? Mary -- Mary Shafer "There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets" Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Scott Ferrin wrote:
They built a model to go with it that weekend too. Hardly a napkin and I doubt many (any actually) manufactures use napkin drawings for their presentation to the brass. That's really quite a silly suggestion Scott...of course they don't, doesn't preclude the initial idea being roughed out by a hand drawn sketch does it? -- -Gord. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gord Beaman" wrote Scott Ferrin wrote: They built a model to go with it that weekend too. Hardly a napkin and I doubt many (any actually) manufactures use napkin drawings for their presentation to the brass. That's really quite a silly suggestion Scott...of course they don't, doesn't preclude the initial idea being roughed out by a hand drawn sketch does it? Scott's refering to the original pitch that sold the B-52 to the Air Force. According to Gunston, a team of Boeing engineers initially pitched a turboprop B-52. When it became plain that the Air Force thought a developed B-36 was preferable, the USAF types handed Boeing a draft set of requirements for a jet bomber, the Boeing guys retired to a hotel in Dayton and over a long weekend, developed the concept of the BUFF from scratch, generated enough drawings and description, including a wooden model to sell the concept. They had a great deal of supporting data with them that was developed in a study that resulted in the B-47 but it's still an amazing feat. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mary Shafer" wrote in message ... On 27 Sep 2003 05:20:41 GMT, (B2431) wrote: From: "Tarver Engineering" aol.com wrote: snip All aircraft and aircraft systems begin as napkin drawings. Another pronouncement from the deep. I thought it was true. How else would you do it? I'm willing to posit that the napkin may be present only symbolically, but every airplane starts with a quick sketch on something. The napkin drawings are great fun to do. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John R Weiss" wrote in message news:NPLeb.657797$uu5.107736@sccrnsc04... "Tarver Engineering" wrote... I say the simulator is where handflying should occur. Typical baseless drabble from someone who can't fly an airplane, much less teach flying! It is all statistics. Now, I will give you that an operator should have landed the airplane they are rated in; as a contributing factor in KAL-801 was the Captain having never landed a real 747. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John R Weiss" wrote in message news:NPLeb.649602$YN5.499281@sccrnsc01... "Tarver Engineering" wrote... The point being that a rudder has some tendancy to reverse in turbulance and I have provided you with two cases of operators panicing, when operating under those conditions. (as determined by the administrator) Two cases in decades and millions of flight hours hardly presents a "general case"! Further, you have not shown any indication of panic on the part of any pilot. You noted earlier that some pilots have been TAUGHT to use a significant amount of rudder in circumstances such as those encountered by US 427. Such use of rudder would have been reaction based on training, not on panic. BTW, I have checked the 747-400 FHB, and turn coordination is indeed a function of the yaw damper. I had overlooked that detail, since the spoilers tend to assist in that same function. Impressive Weiss, but a little late after you have been such a prick. The 707 is a much better study in spoiler deployment for YAW cancellation and probably coser to the B-52H configurtion. Late for what? Perhaps the only thing that's late is your period... My goodness, that is a really lame lame, Weiss. Hmmm... It appears the only thing subject to a prick is that thin-skinned, inflated balloon that is your ego. In that you are clearly projecting, Weiss. Maybe the A-6 comes even closer to current B-52 configuration for roll control -- use of spoilers only, with no ailerons. In the case of the A-6, coordinated turns could be accomplished with little or no use of rudder. However, faster roll rates -- often tactically/operationally advantageous -- were available with rudder use. Thank you for finally contributing some information to this thread, John. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|