Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:56:47 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:
I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

IIRC the first incident you mentioned occured during an airshow where
the autothrottle had been disengaged so the pilot could get closer to
teh edge of the envelope (too close as it turned out).

To me, the no-greater-than-60-degrees-AOB feature on the A320 is disturbing.
The pre-supposition by the folks at Airbus seems to be that the pilot needs
to be kept in a box because he's incapable of staying there on his own.

Err, I'm not sure of your point here. If the pilots are good enough to
avoid 60 degree AOB (Angle of Bank I assume), then what does it matter
if the computer would stop them going faster? And if they aren't that
competent, then the computer should damn well stop them playing silly
buggers. This is the same issue IMO as the G limits built into the FBW
software on most modern aircraft. Some pilots I've spoken to
(specifically F-16 drivers) object to a computer telling them they
can't pull that much g *if they have to* in a life or death situation.
Other point out that if they did exceed the limits they'd likely pull
of the wings, blow a few blood vessels, or flame out - possibly all 3,
and if the computer stops them doing that, that's fine by them.

AS for the current approaches by Boeing and Airbus, I was under teh
impression that with the latest Boeing products (777 and 737NG) they
are virtually indistinguishable to Airbus in their treatmetn of pilots
as system managers, simply becasue the computers do a better job of
keeping on time and min fuel consumption, and money's what the game's
about.

Peter Kemp
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:56:47 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:
I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the
preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

IIRC the first incident you mentioned occured during an airshow where
the autothrottle had been disengaged so the pilot could get closer to
teh edge of the envelope (too close as it turned out).

The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot did
was way out of the envelope.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot did
was way out of the envelope.

Let's see...

You say the "envelope... was to land, or go around"

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added at
14.45:35"

The pilot elected one of the 2 options you stated were part of the
"envelope"

Then you say the go-around "was way out of the envelope."


That makes no sense!

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot
did
was way out of the envelope.

Let's see...

You say the "envelope... was to land, or go around"

As defined by the POH; it is why the pilot went to jail.

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed to
mean?!?

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously -- airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm, from last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control system was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to handle
them.

I suppose this is an addendum to your claims in another thread that

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

and

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

and

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


I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

John R Weiss wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

snip

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

and

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

I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a clue
about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
John R Weiss wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

snip

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

and

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

I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a
clue
about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

That would be a fact.

"Guy Alcala" wrote...

John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a
clue
about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt -- he might have a clue about digital
metric altimeters or something similar...

From: "John R Weiss"

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed to
mean?!?

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously --
airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm, from
last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control system
was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle
them.

I suppose this is an addendum to your claims in another thread that

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

and

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

and

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


I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

Sure he does, he thinks it's the little envelope they give you with your
boarding pass.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote...

I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

Sure he does, he thinks it's the little envelope they give you with your
boarding pass.

Actually, in context, it's more accurately the envelope with all the flight
documentation that the FO turns into Ops after each leg.