The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

Jeff Crowell wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
(actually, Ed Rasimus wrote
The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.

Dan wrote:
Nice to know.

It has virtually NO tactical utility.

Tell that to the F-86 pilots.


Please keep track of your attributions, Dan, or someone might
get the mistaken impression that the Eaglesonbot actually wrote
a lucid sentence. Three of 'em, actually.


Jeff


I never made any of those statements.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
I never made any of those statements.

Nor are you the only guy who posts to the group using
the moniker "Dan."


Jeff

On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:57:56 -0700, Dan wrote:

Douglas Eagleson wrote:

The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.

Nice to know.

It has virtually NO tactical utility.

Tell that to the F-86 pilots.

Try to find any, or any of the planes.

Casady

Douglas Eagleson wrote to Ed Rasimus:

Matching the target is advised and it is as follows.
snip
ALWAYS lossing the trailing aircraft.

Douglas, does the expression, "teaching Grandma to suck eggs" mean
anything to you?

Failure to answer directly will serve as proof that the poster with the
initials DE is an otbay. (The preceding obfuscation is for tactical
reasons that should be obvious to most posters.)

Thank you very much,
--
sjs

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

A spiral or corkscrew as a maneuver allows an escape. You need elevator
deflection, while entering the simple aileron roll, as a rule to cause the
high angle of attack necessary to slow the aircraft and corkscrew breakoff to
the anywhere direction.

Hmmm... Sounds REMOTELY like a high-G barrel roll that can be used ONLY as a
last-ditch maneuver against a close-in gun attack... OTOH, if the bullets
aren't already flying, you haven't escaped ANYTHING -- you've just ****ed away
your energy and allowed the attacker to shoot you when you stop maneuvering
(which you WILL do, else you'll soon hit the ground out of control).

There is nothing about this maneuver, BTW, that favors a canard airplane...


High angle of attack roll rate is critical to either following the target or
breaking off.

So is timing... Again, the maneuver you describe has limited use in ONE
situation.


Matching the target is advised and it is as follows.

"Matching the target"?!? If you are doing anything like that, you ARE the
target!!! If you are NOT the target at the start, you certainly will be at the
end!


1. elevator deflect and roll positive g.
2. As 180 degree roll is passed a person needs to do a single elevator
motion. And if you get it wrong the maneuver turns into a dive.
3. SO push on the elevator to mAKE THE FORWARD CORCKSCREW POSSIBLE.

Now you make it sound like a Lomcevak(sp?) (except you forgot the rudder input),
which is NOT a useful tactical maneuver!


So it is a hard thing to get the hang of and it has negative gs.

A special modification was to aerodynamics. What can be changed. A dive as
arule is always sort of expected. SO a vertical exit from the corkscrew
appear the false exit. A fake exit is possible aerodynamically. A simple
vertical followed by a return to the corkscrew really making it impossible to
follow.

Indeed, a dive is always "expected" after a pilot ****es away all his kinetic
energy...

An attacker would not WANT to follow such a ridiculous maneuver! As pointed out
by another REAL pilot, the attacker only needs to lag up high and keep sight,
and shoot you when you emerge from the folly!


ALWAYS lossing the trailing aircraft.

More like "never" than "ALWAYS"!

On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:17:12 -0700, "JR Weiss"
wrote:

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

A spiral or corkscrew as a maneuver allows an escape. You need elevator
deflection, while entering the simple aileron roll, as a rule to cause the
high angle of attack necessary to slow the aircraft and corkscrew breakoff to
the anywhere direction.

Hmmm... Sounds REMOTELY like a high-G barrel roll that can be used ONLY as a
last-ditch maneuver against a close-in gun attack... OTOH, if the bullets
aren't already flying, you haven't escaped ANYTHING -- you've just ****ed away
your energy and allowed the attacker to shoot you when you stop maneuvering
(which you WILL do, else you'll soon hit the ground out of control).

There is nothing about this maneuver, BTW, that favors a canard airplane...

Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
heartbeats.

All was as you say, Sensei.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
heartbeats.

It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
supersonic bit for long.

Casady

On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:37:46 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
heartbeats.

It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
supersonic bit for long.

Casady

Your understanding was correct. It didn't really take A/B to get going
really quickly on the deck. We often came down the last fifty miles to
a target at 540 indicated with a full load of eight 750 pound bombs
and did nuclear deliveries on the range with a 600 KIAS run-in, all
without burner. You could get supersonic quite easily with a short
blast of burner and it didn't take long to get clear of anything.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

On May 30, 6:37*pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus

wrote:
Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
heartbeats.

It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
supersonic bit for long.

I'm not sure that a Thud could outrun 37mm cannon shells, though.

Richard Casady wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
heartbeats.

It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
supersonic bit for long.

In the midst of my unpacking, I've dredged up a paper copy of:
AIR COMBAT TACTICS EVALUATION F-100, F-104, F-105, F-4C VS MIG-15/17 TYPE
AC(F-86H),
Authored by the USAF Fighter Weapons School, Nellis AFB, May 1965.
Basically, lacking a sufficient number of MiG-17s at the time,
the USAF used ANG F-86Hs as MiG-equivalents, and turned them loose
against TAC F-100s, F-104s, F-105s, and F-4Cs to find the best tactics
to use when defensive (F-86s bouncing), and offensive.
In all cases, the best tactic against a gun attack by the F-86 was to extend
out, using AB and God's G, (0 G push - negating induced drag), breaking if
necessary to spoil a gun run, and to consider reattacking when supersonic.
Even at Mach 0.9 (Call it 600 Kts) it takes enough time for any of these
jets to pull out of gun range in level flight for the MiG to run out of
bullets.

The speed was there, but acceleration, impressive as it was, wasn't enough
to get you faster fast enough.

--
Pete Stickney
Any plan where you lose your hat is a bad plan