[Fwd: What happened to Jay?]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:58:26 GMT, Franklin wrote:

On Tue 18 Nov08 04:18, Ari
wrote in :

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:09:17 +0800, Franklin wrote:

In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.

Something you have to do to get to the "bottoms" of things, right Ben?

Hi Ari-el, I figured DH hadn't understood your background so I filled in
a bit of it. Hope you don't mind.

Nooooooooo, not a bit, Ben.

Hey, you know I'm a nice guy. Don't like trouble unless it's deserved.
Making cocaine runs and watching others go down to save your skin merits
a decent punch up.

I'd say do to Bottoms absence that he got something of that, yes.

A couple of misunderstood posts, well, they just
aren't worth it.

Nope, sure not.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:44:48 GMT, Franklin wrote:

On Tue 18 Nov08 06:16, Little Luke
wrote in :

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:15:36 -0500, Payton Byrd wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:18:01 -0500, Ari wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:11:31 +0800, Franklin wrote:

Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged
their feet in praising John Boyd.

****, warped conceptions to hear Boyd's swooners he invented
energy fighter tactics and was personally responsible for the
F-1Xs. Knew little about energy tactics, energy fighting. Show me
his initials on blueprints F1Xs.

He never fired in enemy combat. The rhetoric about pilots that
were allegedly involved in everything aviation-related is
historical bull****. Contributions, goodie. The rest.....

Pffffffffft,

Looks like Dudley went nighty-night

Age-induced sleep.

Hey fellas, I'm trying to cool the temperature around here. Let's take
a break for some beers.

Old warfighters rise early, Not to worry.
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

On Nov 18, 10:41*am, "Maxwell" #$$9#@%%%.^^^ wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

news:f188c124-e34b-4816-939e-

Is there ever a time when pulling more g does not rob airspeed? I've
not experienced any case where more g does not take energy...

Cheers

The ability to pull g will produce a lot of things including turn rate
and radius depending on where the aircraft is in relation to it's
specific excess power available. You will lose airspeed to g as
induced drag increases, so an energy loss as you have indicated.
Thrust is the equalizer if available. *The combination of all these
factors determines where the aircraft is at any moment in three
dimensional space. Create positive g and counter that with thrust and
you have a positive Ps and the ability to accelerate, turn or climb in
that area of your envelope. Create g that can't be countered by thrust
and you do indeed lose airspeed. The turn you are generating drags the
aircraft back toward it's neutral Ps=0 line for those conditions and
any g generated beyond that point will result in a negative Ps. With
negative energy rate being generated, something has to give. That will
usually be altitude.
Dudley Henriques

------------------------------------

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! The correct answer was No, Hemingway.

I'm sure it would be, at your level of understanding.
Tell me Maxie,will you EVER have anything useful to contribute other
than this constant display of ignorance?

On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques wrote
in news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
wrote:
[...]

You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with
a linear expanding g profile.
The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
problem.

Fun isn't it?

Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on the
Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in any
turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn parameters
are in play.

I see that now. Ok. My mistake.

I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
the Turkey was related to EM :-))

You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong but I'd
like another go!

You don't give altitude so I will assume it. You made me re-examine
where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs. Specific excess
power Ps is delta energy with delta time. Accounting for induced drag
which the question focuses on then (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs)
at that state I say you would get acceleration.

Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure) that
greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so airspeed could
fall. Am I getting closer?

If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
Dudley Henriques

That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
stunts to highlight E-M.

On Tue 18 Nov08 10:20, Dudley Henriques wrote in
news:70dbc7c0-4e28-4e1b-8245-119e5428ec32
@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com
:

On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques wrote:





On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques
wrote in news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
wrote:
[...]

You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is
30.5, which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning
F14 with a linear expanding g profile.
The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within
the problem.

Fun isn't it?

Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on
the Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in
any turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn
parameters are in play.

I see that now. Ok. My mistake.

I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work
with the Turkey was related to EM :-))

You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
but I'd like another go!

You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me
re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs.
Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
(assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
get acceleration.

Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
airspeed could fall. *Am I getting closer?

If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
Dudley Henriques

That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match
his stunts to highlight E-M.

Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here
lately with all these characters and I thought you might be another
one :-)

Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the
g is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
to drag.

Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at
T- D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.

An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
drag has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0.
If g is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder,
airspeed will drop off.

Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
aggressive response to you.
Dudley Henriques


DH, thanks for the explanation. No problem with your hasty reaction.
Ari can be a little hasty too. Service leaves some with PTSD and
others, like Ari, with sharpened responses.

One should not seek to blame former combatants for a normal reaction
to the abnormal circumstances they have dealt with. Civilians devalue
quick decisive responses because many who have never seen action learn
to value politeness even if masks ineffectiveness.

In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.

I looked you up. You have quite a background in E-M.

Franklin

On Tue 18 Nov08 10:28, Dudley Henriques wrote

On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques wrote:

That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match
his stunts to highlight E-M.

I met John and knew him for a short time before he died. He was
indeed a no nonsense guy and probably one of the finest pure sticks
I've ever known if not THE best. His coffers were filled with the
names of the best fighter pilots in the world who he converted on
from allowing them a starting position at his six while flying the
Hun. His on going bet was 40 seconds, and to my knowledge he was
never beaten nor has his record ever been topped for conversion air
to air 1V1. I did a bit of research flying as a civilian in T38's
that involved EM while working on inertial coupling departure and
John gave us a beautiful photograph of my airplane in flight signed
by him. It hangs on our den wall. Great guy, and along with E.T.
Christie and Rutowski from Douglas, probably some of the finest
aviation minds of our time.

Dudley Henriques


Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged their
feet in praising John Boyd.

I guess the top brass value compliance before competence. I guess they
might have to behave like that to maintian order. Hard to forgive them
for it though.

On Tue 18 Nov08 11:04, Payton Byrd
wrote in
:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:51:53 +0800, Franklin wrote:

I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
the Turkey was related to EM :-))

You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
but I'd like another go!

You don't give altitude so I will assume it. You made me
re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs.
Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
(assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
get acceleration.

Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
airspeed could fall. Am I getting closer?

Unless energy management systems have been rewritten.

Heh! Sorry if I wasn't clear.

When I wrote "encounter even greater drag" I wan't referring to the
increase in drag as the F-14 accelerated.

I was saying that it the increase in drag for this motion could be
greater than the increase in thrust which caused the motion. IYSWIM.

On Tue 18 Nov08 11:04, Ari
wrote in
:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:20:33 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques
wrote:





On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques
wrote in news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
wrote:
[...]

You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is
30.5, which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning
F14 with a linear expanding g profile.
The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within
the problem.

Fun isn't it?

Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on
the Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in
any turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn
parameters are in play.

I see that now. Ok. My mistake.

I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work
with the Turkey was related to EM :-))

You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
but I'd like another go!

You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me
re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14
specs. Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
(assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
get acceleration.

Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
airspeed could fall. *Am I getting closer?

If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
Dudley Henriques

That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match
his stunts to highlight E-M.

Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here
lately with all these characters and I thought you might be another
one :-)

Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the
g is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to
the first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall
victim to drag.

Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at
T- D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.

An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
drag has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and
Ps=0. If g is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder,
airspeed will drop off.

Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
aggressive response to you.
Dudley Henriques

Ben's a doll.

Really.


You see! I didn't forget all the theory you showed me.

"Franklin" see_REPLY-TO_header wrote in message
...
On Tue 18 Nov08 10:20, Dudley Henriques wrote in
news:70dbc7c0-4e28-4e1b-8245-119e5428ec32
@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com
:

On Nov 18, 12:51 pm, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques wrote:





On Nov 18, 7:14 am, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques
wrote in news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 17, 10:23 am, Payton Byrd
wrote:
[...]

You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is
30.5, which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning
F14 with a linear expanding g profile.
The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within
the problem.

Fun isn't it?

Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on
the Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in
any turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn
parameters are in play.

I see that now. Ok. My mistake.

I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work
with the Turkey was related to EM :-))

You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
but I'd like another go!

You don't give altitude so I will assume it. You made me
re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs.
Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
(assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
get acceleration.

Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
airspeed could fall. Am I getting closer?

If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
Dudley Henriques

That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match
his stunts to highlight E-M.

Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here
lately with all these characters and I thought you might be another
one :-)

Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the
g is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
to drag.

Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at
T- D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.

An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
drag has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0.
If g is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder,
airspeed will drop off.

Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
aggressive response to you.
Dudley Henriques


DH, thanks for the explanation. No problem with your hasty reaction.
Ari can be a little hasty too. Service leaves some with PTSD and
others, like Ari, with sharpened responses.

One should not seek to blame former combatants for a normal reaction
to the abnormal circumstances they have dealt with. Civilians devalue
quick decisive responses because many who have never seen action learn
to value politeness even if masks ineffectiveness.

In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.

I am in a financial crisis. What good is he to me?


I looked you up. You have quite a background in E-M.

Franklin

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:28:46 -0000, fudgee logic wrote:

In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.

I am in a financial crisis. What good is he to me?

He's a Jew with lotsa money.
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life sigh