F-106 Speed record questions....

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:rXNZb.375545$na.567325@attbi_s04...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope,
it
is normal operation.

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

How are the flight controls "altered from normal operation"?

The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to do a
cobra manouver.

What part of the cobra maneuver is outside the airplane's flight envelope?

The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's augmentation
on.

How do you define "flight envelope" in context?

I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated system"
mode.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope, it
is normal operation.

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

How are the flight controls "altered from normal operation"?

The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to do a
cobra manouver.

What part of the cobra maneuver is outside the airplane's flight envelope?

The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's augmentation
on.

How do you define "flight envelope" in context?

I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated system"
mode.

I don't define "flight envelope" in any context with reference to any F-18
system mode...

So, what was the "normal operation" mode of the F-106 flight controls?

By your definition/description of "flight envelope," any maneuver or regime an
airplane can enter with any control input, using "normal" control authority is a
"normal operation."

Using that definition, any maneuvers prohibited by the Operator's Handbook or
other limitations would be considered "normal" if they were achievable using the
"normal" flight control mode. So, do you consider as "normal operation" any
departure from controlled flight, spin (even if entered inadvertently, in an
aircraft in which intentional spins are prohibited), or extended inverted flight
(even if it causes oil or fuel starvation to the engine)? Many airplanes can
enter these flight regimes with flight controls in "normal" configurations, but
few pilots would consider them "normal operations" in most airplanes.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:umUZb.378753$na.569282@attbi_s04...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight
envelope, it
is normal operation.

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the
flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

How are the flight controls "altered from normal operation"?

The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to do
a
cobra manouver.

What part of the cobra maneuver is outside the airplane's flight
envelope?

The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's
augmentation
on.

How do you define "flight envelope" in context?

I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated system"
mode.

I don't define "flight envelope" in any context with reference to any F-18
system mode...

You should, the F-18 unaugmented is a real tail dragger and I don't mean a
wheel.

So, what was the "normal operation" mode of the F-106 flight controls?

I never worked on the F-106's flight controls.

By your definition/description of "flight envelope," any maneuver or
regime an
airplane can enter with any control input, using "normal" control
authority is a
"normal operation."

Using that definition, any maneuvers prohibited by the Operator's Handbook
or
other limitations would be considered "normal"

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

Consider for a moment that you are a French pilot making a low slow pass
over a runway in an early A-320. The airplane has no such normal operation
for a low slow pass over a runway, but only to land, or go around.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope, it
is normal operation.

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to do a
cobra manouver.

The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's augmentation
on.

How do you define "flight envelope" in context?

I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated system"
mode.

So, what was the "normal operation" mode of the F-106 flight controls?

By your definition/description of "flight envelope," any maneuver or regime
an
airplane can enter with any control input, using "normal" control authority
is a
"normal operation."

Using that definition, any maneuvers prohibited by the Operator's Handbook or
other limitations would be considered "normal"

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

But you just told us the flight envelope is described by the airplane's ability
to perform a maneuver or enter a flight regime using a "normal" control
configuration! Which is it -- defined by a control mode or defined by an
operator's handbook (I will assume that includes a "Dash-1" for USAF airplanes
and NATOPS for USN airplanes and FAA approved Flight Handbook [FHB} for
Transport category aircraft)?

If the operator's handbook, how is the "flight envelope" described? In the
General Limitations and Specifications" section or "Maximum Airspeed Limits
Chart" in the Limitations section of an FHB? Something else? Something more?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:WPe_b.42094$4o.58808@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight
envelope, it
is normal operation.

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the
flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to
do a
cobra manouver.

The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's
augmentation
on.

How do you define "flight envelope" in context?

I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated
system"
mode.

So, what was the "normal operation" mode of the F-106 flight controls?

By your definition/description of "flight envelope," any maneuver or
regime
an
airplane can enter with any control input, using "normal" control
authority
is a
"normal operation."

Using that definition, any maneuvers prohibited by the Operator's
Handbook or
other limitations would be considered "normal"

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

But you just told us the flight envelope is described by the airplane's
ability
to perform a maneuver or enter a flight regime using a "normal" control
configuration!

Sure.

The POH is part of the Type Certificate.

Are you claiming the Dash 1 for an F-106 disagrees with a mach 2.3 F-106?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

But you just told us the flight envelope is described by the airplane's
ability
to perform a maneuver or enter a flight regime using a "normal" control
configuration!

The POH is part of the Type Certificate.

Non sequitur. Military aircraft don't, in general, have type certificates. I'm
fairly certain the F-106 never had one.


Are you claiming the Dash 1 for an F-106 disagrees with a mach 2.3 F-106?

I'm not claiming anything. I am questioning your basis for your multiple,
contradictory definitions and descriptions of "flight envelope" and "normal
operation."

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:x%s_b.249390$U%5.1719263@attbi_s03...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

But you just told us the flight envelope is described by the airplane's
ability
to perform a maneuver or enter a flight regime using a "normal" control
configuration!

The POH is part of the Type Certificate.

Non sequitur. Military aircraft don't, in general, have type
certificates. I'm
fairly certain the F-106 never had one.

You are the one that brought the POH into the discussion, Weiss.

Go play your childish silly game elsewhere.

From: "John R Weiss"
Date: 2/21/2004 8:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: umUZb.378753$na.569282@attbi_s04

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope,
it
is normal operation.

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

How are the flight controls "altered from normal operation"?

The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to do a
cobra manouver.

What part of the cobra maneuver is outside the airplane's flight envelope?

The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's augmentation
on.

How do you define "flight envelope" in context?

I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated system"
mode.

I don't define "flight envelope" in any context with reference to any F-18
system mode...

So, what was the "normal operation" mode of the F-106 flight controls?

By your definition/description of "flight envelope," any maneuver or regime
an
airplane can enter with any control input, using "normal" control authority
is a
"normal operation."

Using that definition, any maneuvers prohibited by the Operator's Handbook or
other limitations would be considered "normal" if they were achievable using
the
"normal" flight control mode. So, do you consider as "normal operation" any
departure from controlled flight, spin (even if entered inadvertently, in an
aircraft in which intentional spins are prohibited), or extended inverted
flight
(even if it causes oil or fuel starvation to the engine)? Many airplanes can
enter these flight regimes with flight controls in "normal" configurations,
but
few pilots would consider them "normal operations" in most airplanes.


You were expecting an honest, straight and/or knowledgable responce from
tarver?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote...

You were expecting an honest, straight and/or knowledgable responce from
tarver?

No...

But I'm an incurable optimist, hoping for one eventually!

From: "John R Weiss"
Date: 2/22/2004 9:05 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: L5e_b.40667$Xp.182937@attbi_s54

"B2431" wrote...

You were expecting an honest, straight and/or knowledgable responce from
tarver?

No...

But I'm an incurable optimist, hoping for one eventually!

You have to stop using those big words. Not everyone knows an optimist is an
eye doctor.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired